Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, in the room of Albert Bellamy, esquire, C.B.E., deceased.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Inverness Harbour) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Local Authorities (Publicity) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Twenty-five Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Town and Country Planning Bill): the Lord Advocate, Colonel Ashley, Mr. Cadogan, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Compton, Mr. Foot, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Hardie, the Marquess of Hartington, Captain Ronald Henderson, Sir Thomas
Inskip, Colonel Lane Fox, Miss Lawrence, Sir Joseph McConnell, Mr. Maclean, Major Muirhead, Mr. Richard Russell, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Train, Mr. Watson, Mr. James C. Welsh (Coatbridge), Mr. Westwood, Mr. Graham White, Miss Wilkinson and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to indicate to the House the Amendments that you propose to take to-day in connection with this Bill, so that we may be able to help matters along, as we shall then know better where we are?

Mr. SPEAKER: I propose to call the first Amendment, and, after that, I will indicate what further Amendments I propose to call.

CLAUSE 2.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. McSHANE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
The expression 'registered architect' means a person registered under this Act in respect of the business of designing structures and the supervision, in his capacity of designer, of the erection of structures.
There seems to have been an oversight on the part both of the promoters of the Bill and of those who have helped to make it a better instrument than it was when it left this House after its Second Reading. In Clause 2 of the Bill, there are definitions of the expressions "the Council," "registered person," and "prescribed," and we have also in the Clause a definition of the register. But, singularly enough, the most important definition of all, and one which is absolutely necessary if this Registration Bill is to be complete, is the definition of an architect. My colleagues and myself have given considerable thought to the definition of this term, and, as a result, we propose that which is contained in this Amendment.
A definition is necessary because the architect, in the nature of things, has not only a province of his own, but has frequently to encroach upon the provinces of other kindred interests. I need only refer to the builders, the surveyors, the engineers and so on. And, if we are going to give statutory recognition to a profession, as we hope we shall by this Bill, we ought to make quite clear what the profession is, and exactly what its
duties are supposed to be. I have a little book here, published by the Royal Institute of British Architects, which is very handsomely done. It is perfectly simple, and is written for simple people like myself, and I congratulate its author, because, as an architect ought to do, he gives a delightful quotation from Shakespeare as a prelude:
… When we mean to build,
We first survey the plot, then draw the model;
And when we see the figure of the house,
Then must we rate the cost of the erection.
I thought at first that the word "rate" was a misprint for "raise," but I am assured that it is not a misprint.
Which if we find outweighs ability,
What do we then, but draw anew the model
In fewer offices.
That is taken from King Henry IV, Part II, Act I, Scene III. It is the prelude to an excellent little book, from which I desire to read one or two quotations, because it deals with the question of the definition of an architect and his work. On page 7 of this booklet, it is stated of the architect:
He is an artist, but is also a man of science and of business, who is concerned with facts and figures, with building law contracts, prices and building materials, and a hundred and one practical problems which require practical solution.
The point that I want to make is one which I have already made, namely, that the architect cannot carry on his work in vacuo; he does it on the territories of other professions; so that it is as well for us to know exactly what the definition of an architect is. On page 10 of the booklet there is, I regret to say, a phrase which I myself would have found it difficult to use. Someone has said that you never find a phrase like "an honest lawyer"; but on page 10 I find these words:
The honest architect will be able to help the client to decide which factor shall give way.
I have assumed, in the whole of my negotiations and my work on this Bill, that there could not be such a thing as a dishonest architect. On page 13, we find a definition of what an architect is:
The presence of an architect is to superintend the process of construction, and to secure the proper observance of the building contract is essentially in the interests of the building public.
That is very much the same as we have included in this Amendment, and I do not think it could be very much improved upon, except that we have economised more in adjectives.
There is one other aspect of this matter on which I should like to give another quotation from this booklet. Hon. Members may not be aware that, when bills of quantities in connection with the building of houses or other structures are drawn up, it is necessary, and, indeed, it is stated here that it is customary, for the architect to advise the client on the choice of a quantity surveyor; and it is also stated that the surveyor's fees are customarily added as a percentage to the bill of each separate trade and paid as part of the payment to the builder. That, in a sense, seems to amount to the architect appointing his own policeman, which is an excellent way of ensuring that things shall work out according to plan.
There is another reason why it is urgently necessary to know exactly what an architect is, and what are the statutory rights that we to-day, I hope, are going to give him. I have here the report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade in 1930 in connection with the registration of accountants. There is a paragraph in it which is very interesting in view of my claim that we should have a definition of "architect." I think it will be agreed that the accountants also have an excellent case for being registered. It will prevent abuse, and it will prevent the charlatan from exploiting more or less ignorant people. Paragraph 32 states:
One of the practical difficulties in the way of establishing a register accompanied by restriction of practice is to define accountancy. A number of definitions have been placed before the committee, none Of which satisfactorily covers the whole field. Leading members of the profession assert that they are unable to draw up a definition which would include all the various functions of an accountant, without embracing work which is equally within the scope of other professions. Accountancy ranges over the whole field of business affairs, and the functions of an accountant extend from what is little more than book-keeping to advising on financial reconstruction schemes and the flotation, reconstruction or liquidation of large industrial and other undertakings. Solicitors and bankers, as well as accountants, undertake the preparation of trust accounts and Income Tax returns.
That is the practical difficulty that they found with regard to it. Here we have the architect, who traverses the territories of the builders, the engineers, and the surveyors, and it is as well for us to know exactly what is the area within which we are going to give him these statutory rights. Every other expression in the Bill is defined, but the most important of all is not defined.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: This point, in regard to the definition of the word "architect," was fully discussed in Committee, and the difficulties were very clearly realised as to how best to define it. The original wording in the Bill was "bona fide architect." It was realised that that might be open to misinterpretation, and it was then agreed to leave out the words "bona fide" and simply have the word "architect." We all felt, and the House will probably feel, that the simplicity of the word "architect" is possibly the easiest means of getting out of the difficulty. Other professions which have sought registration have found exactly the same difficulty. The dental profession cast round for a form of words to qualify the word "dentist" and finally they evolved one which, to my mind, does not convey very much—the words "whose principal mode of livelihood"—is, I suppose, drawing teeth. We do not believe that a similar insertion would make in any way clearer what the word "architect" means. This Amendment means that the architectural profession is encroaching on other professions of equal dignity and standing, such as structural engineering and civil engineering. All these great bodies are concerned with the business of designing structures and the supervision of those structures. We do not want to interfere with their duties, and I am sure they will feel in exactly the same way towards the architectural profession. It would be very unfair, unwise, and unjust to take upon ourselves these responsibilities and offend other great professions which are on the borderline of the architectural profession, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seconded the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wallsall (Mr. McShane) asked me earlier in the Debate to give some indication of the Amendments which I propose to take. I understand that this Bill was very fully discussed in Committee upstairs, and it seems to me that it would not be in accordance with the proper procedure of this House, particularly upon Bills of this kind, for a Debate which was very full in Committee to be repeated on the Report stage. That does not seem to be the reason for which the Report stage exists, and therefore I shall have

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 107.

Division No. 212.]
AYES.
[11.22 a.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Batey, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lees, J.
Taylor, R. A. ([...]ncoln)


Cove, William G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Daggar, George
McElwee, A.
Wellock, Wilfred


Freeman, Peter
Quibell, D. J. K.
Westwood, Joseph


Gossling, A. G.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gould, F.
Romeril, H. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hardie, George D.
Rosbotham, D. S. T
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Rowson, Guy



Jenkins, Sir William
Sandham, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sawyer, G. F.
Mr. McShane and Mr. March.


Kinley, J.
Simmons, C. J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gower, Sir Robert
Pole, Major D. G.


Arnott, John
Gray, Milner
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Aske, Sir Robert
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Beaumont, M. W.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Remer, John R.


Benson, G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Blindell, James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Harris, Percy A.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hayes, John Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bracken, B.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brothers, M.
Herriotts, J.
Sherwood, G. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Shield, George William


Buchan, John
Hoffman, P. C.
Shillaker, J. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simms, Major-General J.


Butler, R. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Campbell, E. T.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Smithers, Waldron


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chater, Daniel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Church, Major A. G.
Knight, Holford
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Thurtle, Ernest


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leach, W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dallas, George
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Ede, James Chuter
Mansfield, W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mathers, George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edmunds, J. E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Muff, G.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Foot, Isaac
Muggeridge, H. T.
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Paling, Wilfrid



Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Palmer, E. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibbins, Joseph
Perry, S. F.
Colonel Moore and Mr. Shakespeare.


Glassey, A. E.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John

to refuse to accept a great many of the Amendments. I understand that the promoters of the Bill are ready to accept a considerable number of the Amendments which have been put down in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall and his friends. I propose to take the Amendment at the bottom of page 1201—in Clause 7, page 4, line 14, after the word "If," to insert the words:
the council requires the services of an examination board to test by examination the possession of qualifications prescribed by the council for admission to the Register then
the council shall provide for the holding by the examination board (constituted in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act) of such examinations at least once in each year and at such times and places as the examination board may with the sanction of the council determine. The council shall recognise as examinations under this section examinations the passing of which is, or may be, recognised for exemption from the final examinations of the incorporated architectural electoral bodies enumerated in Section one of the First Schedule to this Act, and may recognise as examinations under this Section examinations for the time being organised and held at any school of architecture.
Provided always that recognition of examinations, degrees, and diplomas under this Section and Sub-section (b) of Section five of this Act may be withdrawn, but shall not be withdrawn without the approval of the Privy Council.
—but I do not propose to take very many of the other Amendments. These Amendments were not upon the Paper until this morning, and it did not give me a very great opportunity of thoroughly going through them. I understand that the Amendment at the bottom of page 1201 does not altogether make very good sense as it stands upon. the Paper. If the hon. Member will draft it a bit better, I shall be more likely to accept it. It is the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton).

Mr. McSHANE: May I at the outset express my regret that owing to the Recess it was impossible for some of us to put in the Amendments earlier; that accounts for the fact that they were only handed in last night. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention to Clause 5. As Clause 5 stands in the Bill, taken in conjunction with Clause 6, there is such an obvious contradiction that it would be a reflection upon the intelligence of this House if the Clause were to be allowed to pass in its present form. Clause 5 states, in essence, that the Admission Committee shall allow certain names to be placed upon the Register.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss Clause 5 now, and I understand that the Clause was discussed at great length in Committee.

Mr. McSHANE: I am not in any sense trying to get past your Ruling. I am merely pointing out that it was almost the unanimous opinion of the Committee
that the Bill had been left in such an unsatisfactory state that certain alterations would have to be made with regard to certain Clauses in order to make them tally. Clause 5 does not tally with Clause 6, and I am anxious that it should do so. It, will be noticed that Clause 6 says:
The decisions of the Admission Committee shall be subject to confirmation by the council.
Clause 5 states that, if the Admission Committee decide that a man shall be registered, the Council shall be compelled to accept him. These two Clauses are at such variance that it would not be desirable that the Bill should leave the House of Commons in its present state.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has an Amendment down to Clause 6 which I understand the promoters of the Bill are willing to accept. With regard to Clause 7 and the Amendment to which I have referred standing in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough, upon which, I think, it is reasonable to have a discussion, if the hon. Member would move to leave out the Clause, it would be the best way out of the difficulty. The hon. Member had better move to leave out all the words after the word "If." We could then have a discussion on the Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Are we going now from Clause 2, on which the last Division was taken, to Clause 5?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are discussing at the moment the Amendments that I am going to allow. We are not discussing any single Amendment. I was only suggesting to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton) that, as the Amendment which stands in his name does not read, it will be more suitable for him to move to leave out all the words after the word "If."

Mr. WINTERTON: I am prepared to take the course which you suggest, but I want to suggest to you and to the House that a good many of the Amendments which you have said you do not think you will ask the House to consider are purely drafting Amendments which have been made necessary, not only in the judgment of the critics but
of its promoters, because of certain contradictions which have come into the Bill owing to its very complicated nature and the difficulties which met the Standing Committee when they were dealing with it. Therefore, with all respect, I suggest that, although the list of Amendments may look rather comprehensive and it may be assumed that they will take a great deal of Parliamentary time, my hon. and gallant Friend who is in charge of the Bill will probably to able to accept all of them.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member will find that when we come to the Amendments I shall allow the Amendments of which he has spoken, certainly those which the promoters will accept.

CLAUSE 3.—(Council to set up and maintain a Register of Architects.)

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "The council," and to insert instead thereof the words:
For the purposes of this Act there shall be established an Architects' Registration Council of the united Kingdom (in this Act referred to as 'the council') which).
On looking through the Bill when it came from the Committee we found that the council which is mentioned in Clause 3 (1) had not been properly constituted, and it was necessary in order to put the position right that an Amendment should be moved. This is really a drafting Amendment.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment that I call stands in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane)—in page 2, line 11, after the word "name," to insert the word "and."

Mr. McSHANE: On a. point of Order. It cannot be that you are passing over the Amendment—in page 2, line 10, after the word "of," to insert the word "registered." The Bill would be entirely inaccurate if that were so. The Amendment which I desire to move, in Sub-section (3), is purely drafting. As amended, the Sub-section would read:
(3) It shall be the duty of the council within six months from the passing of this Act to set up and thereafter maintain a register to be called "the Register of Registered Architects."…
As this is not a compulsory Measure, it would be entirely untrue and inaccurate to say that it is a register of architects. It is a register of registered architects.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In order to save time, I may say that I am willing to accept the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may move the Amendment.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 10, after the word "of," insert the word "registered."—[Mr. McShane.]

Mr. McSHANE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after the word "name," to insert the word "and."
This Amendment must be taken in conjunction with the further Amendment which stands in my name—in page 2, line 12, to leave out the words "and qualifications." The amended Subsection will then read:
… and to cause to be entered therein the name and address of every person entitled to be registered under this Act.
The register is not supposed to be a medium of advertising for a particular architect. It is to be a test as to whether one is a registered architect or not. AU that we need in the register is the name and address. Having been born in Scotland and realising that the insertion of the qualifications would add cost to the compilation of the register, I move the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 12, leave out the words "and qualifications."—[Mr. McShane.]

Mr. McSHANE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the word "twelve," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-seven."
I hope that this Amendment will be accepted and that we shall receive congratulations for trying to make this a decent Bill. Sub-section (4) to which this Amendment relates is not very materially important, but the 27 months that I am proposing must be read in
connection with the period stipulated in Clause 5 (1, c), namely:
Every person who makes application within two years of the passing of this Act.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: To save time, I will accept the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McSHANE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
such certificate shall remain the property of the council and be surrendered by the holder to the council upon publication of the name in or upon removal of the name from the Register.
Again, I am certain that I shall have the House with me in this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I will accept the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Appointment of officers.)

Mr. McSHANE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "at the pleasure of" and to insert instead thereof the word "by."

Mr. WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Persons entitled to be registered without examination.)

Mr. McSHANE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after the word "qualifications," to insert the words
and subject to the provisions of Section six of this Act.

Mr. WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GODFREY WILSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after the word "diploma," to insert the words
from any university in Great Britain or Northern Ireland or any degree or diploma.
In the original Bill any person who has qualified for a degree or diploma at any university in Great Britain or Northern Ireland was entitled to have his name put on the register, but the Bill as it has emerged from the Committee does not contain this provision and one is therefore bound to assume that there is some doubt as to whether such a person is entitled to registration or not. I cannot find any discussion in the Committee stage which would justify this deletion, which in my opinion is a fundamental and important change. At many of our universities there are excellent schools of architecture. At Cambridge University there is a school which has been running for many years, which is attended by students from all parts of the world. There is no doubt that the standards required by the University of Cambridge, and also by other universities, for its degrees and diplomas are perfectly adequate, and the instruction is given by properly qualified persons. The study of architecture is not enclosed in a small circle. It has relation to many other branches of science, engineering, building construction, surveying, and other physical sciences, and there are no better facilities for the study of these sciences than exist at the universities.
I have little doubt that with the Bill as it stands the Architects Registration Council would not hesitate for a moment to accept and recognise the right of students who have obtained a university degree or diploma and would accept them as qualified for registration. In that case, why should not it be made perfectly clear in the Bill so that no uncertainty or doubt may exist. There are a large number of students at Cambridge and unless the Amendment is accepted doubts and fears will arise in their minds as to whether the time they have spent and the expense that has been involved in the pursuit of their studies may not be in danger of being wasted and that they may be required to attend other courses of instruction and satisfy other examinations before they may be registered. The effect of such doubts and fears may be disastrous on schools of architecture in our universities. The School at Cambridge has been built up from small beginning, at considerable expense, and if the number of students who attend is seriously diminished there will be a con-
siderable waste of money and also much practical experience. I understand that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to accept the Amendment. I hope the House as a whole will accept it. There may be a suspicion that the Bill is designed to narrow the means of obtaining registration and the acceptance of the Amendment would tend to allay any suspicion of that kind.

Mr. KELLY: I oppose this Amendment, not because I take any exception to what has been said by the hon. Member as to the value of the education given at the universities, but I do not see why this privileged position should be given to these particular schools as against other schools in the country. I am rather surprised that the universities are asking for this privileged position. I think it should be left as it is in the Bill at present; that is to say, "a degree or diploma recognised by the Council as qualifying for registration," which will enable those who have passed through the universities to prove to the Council that they are qualified for registration. I object to this privileged position, of which we have had so much in industry and trade, and not always to the advantage of industry and trade.

Mr. McSHANE: I was at first inclined to agree entirely to the proposal contained in the Amendment, and I am certainly not finding fault with its intention, but I must make it quite clear what we are doing if we accept it. We are legislating for 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ahead, and we are laying down quite definitely that whatever the standard of qualification may be in the universities it shall be recognised by the Council. In the main the standard of qualification at the universities will tend to increase, but it is certainly not wise for the House of Commons to insist that whatever the standard of qualification may be it must be recognised as qualifying a man for registration. I think it is infinitely better to leave it as it is. I think that the Council, which meets from year to year, and which is in touch with all the latest thought in architecture, and the standards of qualification, will be able to settle whether or not the standard of a university or school has been degraded so far, that it should not be further recognised. If this Amendment were passed, it would tie the hands of the council for
50 years ahead and I hope that on second thoughts the hon. Member will not press it.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I also hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. G. Wilson) will not press this Amendment. I am sure that no council would ever dream of disregarding a diploma or degree from any of the universities, and it seems to me that the Bill, as it stands, covers everything that is necessary. In the interests of saving time, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: If I understood correctly the words of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), he used the expression that the standard of the University of Cambridge or any university standard, would tend to increase.

Mr. McSHANE: I said that we all recognised that in the main they would tend to increase, but that there might be cases in which they would become degraded.

Mr. SAMUEL I agree with the hon. Member's view that the tendency would be for the standard to increase, and, if we can do anything to improve this Bill by including institutions where the standard will increase, then so much the better for architecture. Architecture is the mistress of all the arts, and, if we can secure that the training or initiation of those entering the profession, shall be carried out in universities where the standard is increasing, then so much the better for the practice of the art in this country. We should be very unwise not to give every encouragement to young men who wish to study architecture, and who look to the universities as places where they can obtain the qualification necessary for their inclusion in this register. For that reason, I think that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. G. Wilson) is well founded in his views and I hope that the House will support him.

Mr. EDE: I desire to support the Amendment, and I am bound to say that I heard with some degree of alarm the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) in the closing words of his speech when he suggested that a professional council
should be entitled to set the standard for universities in this country in any matter concerned with education.

Mr. McSHANE: Not a professional council.

Mr. EDE: I refer to this Registration Council. Take the profession to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and I belong, and the Register of Teachers. The one qualification is that they shall have obtained a degree or diploma of one of the universities. That is the standard set for them. The diploma is left entirely to the university concerned. I know that there are universities and universities, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and I had before us a series of applications from teachers for a post, and if there was a diploma in one case from University A, and another in another case from University B, we might be inclined to consider one rather more valuable than the other. But neither of us would desire that the Teachers' Registration Council itself should say what the standard demanded by the university ought to be. I support the Amendment for another reason. I desire to see the universities more and more concerned with the education of young persons intended for every walk of life, and I believe that legislation during the past 30 years has made that more and more possible. Especially do I desire to see the two great residential universities of this country concerned more and more with the practical affairs of life rather than simply with literature, mathematics and the classics, those three particularly useless things—

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: No.

12 n.

Mr. EDE: I might at least be allowed to finish my statement. I was saying that these particularly useless things, in the way of earning a living—outside of journalism and book-making—have far too long monopolised the attention of the universities. Anything which this House can do to make it plain that it desires the active co-operation of these great places of general learning in the setting of higher professional standards, is desirable, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. G. Wilson) will secure the adhesion of the House to his Amendment.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I have listened to this Debate without any preconceived opinions at all, and it appears to me, looking at the Bill and at the Amendment, that the Bill is right as it stands. The provision in the Bill is that a person is to be registered as an architect if he has any degree or diploma recognised by the council. It is now proposed by the Amendment that a person should be recognised and accepted for registration if he has a diploma or degree, not recognised by the council, but given by a university. I do not see why there should be a kind of side avenue to registration. The promoters of the Bill have established very elaborate machinery for deciding who should and should not register, and now the House is being asked to "give the go-by" to the whole of that machinery, and to say that any university, not merely Oxford or Cambridge, but any of the minor universities, may set up an architectural school and that its diploma, whatever its standard may be, is to be accepted as qualifying for the architectural profession. If the standard does, in fact, rise, or is maintained at a higher level, then of course the council will recognise that diploma or degree, but we cannot foresee with certainty what the future will be, and all our universities, however admirable their work, are not up to the standard of Oxford and Cambridge. Therefore it appears to me to be right to leave the matter as the Committee upstairs proposed it should be left, to the council to decide. With regard to other professions, the medical or legal professions, for example, to the best of my knowledge, while university degrees are taken into account, I do not think that the ultimate decision is ever left to a university as to whether a person who has passed through that university's course should be admitted to practice as a lawyer or as a doctor. But it is left to the Inns of Court, or whatever the authority may be, to decide finally how far the studies of the students at the university should qualify for the profession. It appears to me that that precedent should apply here.

Mr. HARDIE: The Amendment seems to introduce a certain snobbishness. An hon. Member who spoke from this side
talked about University A and University B, but he forgot to mention University C 3. We want to see all educational institutions giving more attention to the really practical things of life. While it is essential to have classics and mathematics for recreation in the evenings or early mornings, we need to pay much more attention to education of all kinds for the eight hours day. No paragraph in any Bill could be wider than the one which the Mover of the Amendment seeks to amend. What he is asking is that there shall be certain rights established apart from the provisions of the Bill. That is the snobbery. If we are going to have anything that will make the road equally easy for all grades, we must watch this kind of Amendment. All the brains are not in the house where the father or mother can afford to send a man to a university. There are brains in houses where it takes the parents all their time to give their children ordinary schooling. I have been sufficiently long in public life before coming to this House to know what sometimes goes on in committees which have to make appointments for various professions. I know exactly what is meant by the prejudice of men sitting on these committees—men who themselves are university men, and vote with their prejudice rather than from appreciation of the cause of others who have not been to universities. I hope that every working-class Member of the House will see that the Amendment is defeated.

Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: I would draw the attention of objectors to the Amendment to the fact that under Clause 5 it applies, in the first instance, only to those appointed by the admission committee, and that that committee will act only for a relatively short space of time, probably two years. I believe the promoters of the Bill originally desired a period of five years. If the objectors will look also at Clause 7 they will find that a board of architectural education is to be formed and that that board will arrange qualifications, including the passing of any examinations. That will mean that, in addition to these diplomas, the people who desire registration would be subject to some examination. On this point I would quote the precedent of another institution, the Institution of Civil Engineers, which admits diplomas from certain universities, honours degrees taken at Oxford or Cambridge, for
instance, among others. But in addition candidates have to sit for examination. In a kindred profession such as architecture it is certain that a further examination would require to be passed by those who wish to become registered architects. I think, therefore, that the objection to the Amendment is not a valid objection, but if it has any validity at all it is only during the period of two years for those who already happen to have these particular qualifications.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: These Clauses refer only to those who are practising or are about to practice until this new Council comes into existence. It is common, in all the attempts that are made to pick out professions, and give some guarantee to the country at large that the registered members will be people with qualifications, to have some mode of admission. There are people practising to-day as architects who are eminently qualified by their experience to become registered as architects when this Bill is passed, and some of them will not have university qualifications. I understand that there are several examining bodies now with members admitted on certain terms. If you are going to put in a limiting provision of this kind, the Council will find that a number of persons practising to-day and possessing perhaps a diploma issued by some other body—it may be an incorporated body—will be excluded because they have not a university diploma. I think the proposal limits and ties the Council too much.
Surely this is to be a responsible body? If you are going to prescribe, before the Council comes into existence, exactly the terms upon which it is to admit persons to the profession, you are going to limit it and make it rather an unimaginative official body, whose simple duty will be to register people who come along with the qualifications that this House has laid down rather than those laid down by itself. That would be a mistake. The Council will have in view all the ideas and wishes that we have expressed in this House with regard to architects having the artistic sense. We all know perfectly well that architects practising in the past without any limit to their right to practise have afflicted some awful atrocities on the community. The new Council will be quite aware
of that fact and will be only too anxious to raise the artistic level of members of the profession. We might easily leave the matter to the Council. Give it a margin in which it can work, and with that margin the Council will be a live body rather than a mere registering body.
Finally, I want to say that everyone is aware that among university graduates there is a tendency for graduates to get into commercial life because they are graduates. There has been an appeal made to large business proprietors to take into some of their leading positions the graduates of universities, to give them a nominal salary, and gradually to work them up into positions of importance in commerce. If you are going to place limitations of this kind, and that tendency should grow and by and by there should be a close profession of commercial superintendents or something of that kind of commercial degree, and if you are going to limit it entirely to those coming from the universities, you are going to put too big a strain upon the universities to begin with and you are going to limit far too much the opportunities of entering the different professions. I hope the Amendment will be lost, because I think it is an unnecessary limitation on the province of the Council that is to be set up.

Miss RATHBONE: If I understand the purpose of the Amendment, I think some of the comments upon it, favourable or otherwise, have rather taken the wrong end of the stick'. The last speaker represented the Amendment as an attempt to give exclusive privileges to persons who had got a more expensive form of training at Oxford, tending to the exclusion of poverty-stricken working-class candidates, but if I am informed rightly as to what really underlies this Amendment, it is this, that at Cambridge University they have established an architectural diploma which has to be qualified for in three years, whereas the newer universities, such as Liverpool, of which the large majority of the students are sent from the elementary schools, require five years for their architectural diploma, so that I am doubtful as to the wisdom of the Amendment, but for reasons opposite to those given by some of its opponents.
I doubt whether it is wise to set up the possibility, though it is probably rather remote, of competition between universities to cheapen the diplomas, but if you are to have a Council at all, that body ought to be able to set up a standard of qualification, and it is exceedingly unlikely that any university should fail to conform to a standard that is required and judged as necessary by such a body as this Council. But if it should be that you have an architectural department in a particular university dominated perhaps by a strong personality, who wants to increase the size of his department at the expense of its efficiency, then you may conceivably have a diploma of an inadequate character given by a university at the end of an inadequate period of training, which, just because it is a university diploma, can go over the heads of better diplomas established by the Council. For that reason, which is the opposite reason to that which has been put forward by some of its opponents, I suggest that the Bill is probably better without the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: May I ask the House to come to a decision now on this point and not to waste further time on a matter which is of very little importance? I would say, on behalf of the promoters, that they have an absolutely open mind in regard to it, and I feel that the present wording of the Bill clearly covers the point. I hope the matter may be decided without further discussion.

Mr. G. WILSON: Having expressed the view that I have and illustrated the point that I wished to make, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, after the word "in," to insert the words "Part I of."

This is merely a drafting Amendment.

Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 4, line 9, after the word "Act," insert the words:
and twelve members appointed in accordance with Part II of that Schedule."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Confirmation of decisions of Admission Committee.)

Mr. McSHANE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after the word "confirmation," to insert the words "or revision."

Mr. WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I accept this proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Council to prescribe future qualifications for registration.)

Mr. WINTERTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out from the word "If" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the Council requires the services of an examination board to test by examination the possession of qualifications prescribed by the Council for admission to the Register then the Council shall provide for the holding by the examination board (constituted in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act) of such examinations at least once in each year and at such times and places as the examination board may with the sanction of the Council determine. The Council shall recognise as examinations under this section examinations the passing of which is, or may be, recognised for exemption from the final examinations of the incorporated architectural electoral bodies enumerated in section one of the First Schedule to this Act, and may recognise as examinations under this section examinations for the time being organised and held at any school of architecture.
Provided always that recognition of examinations, degrees and diplomas under this section and sub-section (b) of section five of this Act may be withdrawn, but shall not be withdrawn without the approval of the Privy Council.
I have had the privilege of making a number of brief speeches this morning, but I am afraid that I shall have to keep the House a little longer in order to ask them to consider a very vital Clause in this Bill. We had a great controversy in Committee on the question of the instrument which is to be set up for the purposes of architectural education, and among other improvements that were made in this Bill was that, as stated by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), a very comprehensive Regis-
tration Council was formed. It was given full and complete powers with regard to the registration of architects, and to the extent to which the Committee upstairs accepted that alteration of the original structure of the Bill, it naturally affected other provisions in the Bill which set up other statutory committees. Now, for the first time, it is proposed to give full powers to the Registration Council by way of admission, examination, and registration, and then, in Clause 7, to begin to whittle away those powers by recognising and giving statutory authority to what is, in effect, a private instrument and a specific school of architecture, the Board of Architectural Education. It would be altogether contrary to the main purpose of the Bill if you first of all give full powers to the registration authority and then confuse the issue and conflict the issue by setting up another board entirely which will advise the Council.
The words of the Bill are exceedingly interesting. If you look at Clause 7, you will see that this all-powerful Registration Council must be dependent on the advice of the Board of Architectural Education. That is an existing body which is brought holus bolus into the Bill, and it is, unfortunately, not a body which is acceptable to the whole of the architectural profession. I notice that an appeal was made by the promoters of the Bill, or by one of its supporters, to support the Measure on the ground that the Bill was acceptable on this point amongst others because of the imprimatur of the London County Council, but a letter came from the chairman of the Building Acts Committee of the London County Council, in which he stated that the committee were so dissatisfied with the ability of men who were examined by the Royal Institute of British Architects, that is, by this Board, and held their diplomas, that the council decided to hold examinations themselves, which they did in the years 1928, 1929 and 1931. If the examinations of this particular private instrument do not satisfy the London County Council, what good reason can be suggested why we should give them a preferential place, and, indeed, a place where they practically control, for all time to come, the kind of examination which shall be set, the recognition which shall be given and the quality of the examinations?
Therefore, I do ask the House to repair what we were unable to repair in the Committee upstairs, although only by a small majority, what is obviously a great blot on the Bill by deleting Clause 7 altogether. I do not want to open all the controversial ground we had in Standing Committee A, but why should this particular instrument of one particular architectural organisation only be put in the Bill? Why not put in the Bill also the examinations board of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, the building examinations board of the Faculty of Architects, and the examining board of any of the universities? Why this preferential posision for this particular Board of Architectural Education? The answer is, that it happens to be the handmaiden of the promoters of the Bill. That is the short answer to that question, and for that reason only, the promoters have been exceedingly diligent, and so far successful, in getting this Clause into the Bill, and we are asking very confidently—and especially am I appealing now to this side of the House—that this blot on the Bill should be removed. If it be removed, it will also remove a great deal of the opposition which hitherto we have found, in the public interest, to be essential. I made a statement that this particular board is the private instrument, the handmaiden of the promoters of the Bill. I read, for example, in the calendar of the Royal Institute of British Architects:
The training of architects and the practice of architecture in Great Britain are controlled by the Royal Institute of British Architects.
They are controlled through this organisation provided in Clause 7. For 20 years the organisation, the Royal Institute of British Architects, have used their charter authority to establish a Board of Architectural Education, and to promote this architectural education for the purpose of ear-marking thousands of school students, so that they can be gently shepherded into the ranks of the Royal Institute of British Architects. This is really, in a sense, a recruiting school for one particular close corporation, and it is exceedingly inadvisable, in fact, I go further and say, that it would be a public scandal if an organisation representing, after all, only a
minority of the architects of this country; could use a private institution of this kind to give a preferential position in an Act of Parliament, and say, "Through this gate only, this examination only, shall you be able to enter the architectural profession," and that the advice of this particular private outside body shall be the controlling advice to the registering authority. It is undemocratic. It is unfair, and, I venture to say—I speak with knowledge from representations made to me by private architects—it would be absolutely unjust to such architects as have not that supreme confidence in this Board of Architectural Education that the parents of this body have.
If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will find that it is absolutely unnecessary to have Clause 7 in the Bill at all. It is an extraneous and an unnecessary Clause. It conflicts with what we have already passed this morning. Clause 5 says:
The council shall from time to time make regulations prescribing the qualifications necessary for registration of all persons other than those referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection"—
And then come the vital words:
and for testing by examination or otherwise the possession of the council's prescribed qualifications.
Having already decided this morning to give the council power to test "by examination or otherwise the possession of the council's prescribed qualifications," we undo what was done in Clause 5.

Mr. HARDIE: Snobbery!

Mr. WINTERTON: I, myself, being an Englishman, am not given to such strong language as that, but, obviously, the House of Commons cannot put itself in such a contradictory position as to pass in Clause 5 provisions for examination to be made by the council itself, and then, in Clause 7, begin to undo the good work already done. I could say much more on this particular issue, but I hope that I have said enough to carry with me the sense of the House. In this matter I am pleased to have the support of quite a number of Members who sit on the two Opposition benches, and I hope that the promoters will be wise enough to accept this. If they do not accept this deletion, I am resting on the good sense of the Members of the House
to see that this blot on the Bill is removed. If it be removed, then this instrument, which we have produced with much labour upstairs, will, in my judgment, become a fairly efficient, although not a perfect Architects' Registration Bill, and will give general satisfaction to the whole of the architects and to the public, whose interests will be protected. But with this Clause in, the whole of the otherwise valuable Clauses of the Bill will be vitiated, and you will be handing over to the promoters of the Bill a power which they ought not to exercise, and be showing a preferential treatment for one particular examining body which ought not to be given to any association. It is not as though there were not other examination bodies just as competent. I have in my hand, for instance, an examination paper which I have been reading with great interest this morning. It is not the examination board, by the by, of this organisation. If the House will have patience, I will venture to read one of the questions in this paper:
Describe the main characteristics of Egyptian architecture and explain the conditions which led to its development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) suggests that we might ask the promoter of this Bill to answer that question, and, if the answer is satisfactory, he will get 25 marks. I want to draw the promoter's attention to the fact that there are other examination boards in existence than the one which is now to be incorporated, if the promoters get their way under Clause 7, and that they are equally competent to set examination papers demanding as high a standard as, if not a higher standard than, that which is now named in Clause 7. If the standard of this board which is going to give advice to the council, is high enough to meet the necessary qualifications of an architect to satisfy the public, then undoubtedly the council will give to this particular examination board, as to all others, the right to carry out examinations and the recognition of their diploma.
It seems to me that the promoters of this Bill are uneasy. They are not quite confident in the competence of their board or in the standards of the examination referred to, and they are not sure that it will come up to the necessary requirements when the registration council is established. Therefore, they
are going to make sure of it, by saying that for all time the examination and the standards of architecture are to be stereotyped. On those grounds, I move the deletion of the Clause.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that it will be accepted by the promoters. We have set down in Clause 5 that the council shall have certain powers, but it does seem as though a privileged position is once again being asked for by a particular body. I have tried to visualise what would happen if people in the various trades of the country ever asked the House of Commons for registration, and it were suggested that, because a particular sectional trade union in an industry happened to have a committee termed an education committee, it should be inserted in an Act of Parliament that such a committee should be recognised for the purpose of passing people into the trade or occupation. I was rather surprised that this was not acceptable when we were upstairs. Now that we have decided in Clause 5 that the council shall have powers, let us trust the Council with those powers. If an examination is required end the council sets up the examination machinery, it must not look upon one section of the architects as having all the rights and all the opportunities to engage upon this work. I do not blame a particular section for endeavouring to make use of it, because it will give them a standing in the profession and enable them to increase their membership, probably at the expense of other people, but I can imagine what the promoters would say if I came along from the trade union of which I happen to be a member, and asked the House to give me an opportunity of increasing the membership of the union at the expense of others.

Mr. HARRIS: If what the last speaker said were correct that one organisation is to have a privileged position as an examining body, I would be the first to fall in with the opposition to this Clause. I do not see why one educational board should have a monopoly of carrying out examinations in the future and testing the qualifications for architecture. I think that would be going too far. It is remarkable that the Mover of the Amendment never referred to this
when dealing with the Schedule. So far from the Royal Institute of British Architects being in that position, the Bill proposes that Parliament itself should lay down in the Bill what character the board should take. I would ask the House to refer to the Second Schedule. If there is any criticism of the board, it is rather that it is too comprehensive, too wide, too large, and has too big a number of organisations represented. It is really a democratic body, in the wider sense. It might almost be said to be a mass meeting, because there are no less than 70 members drawn from other organisations, and it is to be the authority responsible for setting examinations. The size and character of the board was due to the benevolence of the promoter in trying to meet every opposition in the most reasonable spirit.
I cannot help having a suspicion that there are some people who do not want us to have a proper examination for the qualification of registered architects. Clause 7 is an essential part of the Bill. Without it, my hon. Friend would be wise to drop the Bill and not to proceed further with it. All that Clause 5 does is retrospective, in bringing in existing architects. Clause 7 provides for the future, that men who are to be qualified to call themselves registered architects, shall have proper examination tests.

Mr. MILLS: May I ask the hon. Member a question about Clause 7? A paragraph in that Clause says:
The council shall recognise as examinations under this section examinations, the passing of which is or may be recognised for exemption from the final examination of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
It has been suggested, and I put this forward with an earnest desire to see if we can reach an agreement, that after these words there should be inserted the words: "or of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors." In all our Debates on the Committee stage, there was obviously a battle between the two associations. If it is possible for the phrase that I have just given to be inserted, it may be possible to reach agreement.

Mr. HARRIS: I am not the promoter of this Bill, and am not in a position to accept Amendments or, really, to speak on behalf of the architects. I have
really been on the Committee as a detached observer. I am informed that the examinations of the Royal Institute of British Architects have been going on for many years, while on the other hand—I am not going to make any bones about it—this mushroom organisation, which was promoted for one purpose and one purpose only, to prevent this kind of Bill from becoming an Act of Parliament, and has had no examinations up to the present, wish, now that we have this Bill, to invent an examination for the purpose of bluffing the House of Commons. Mr. Culpin, who is a Labour Alderman of the London County Council, and a former president of this mushroom organisation, was so disgusted with its members that he has resigned all connection with it. The hon. Member, in a very conciliatory spirit, has given very reasonable prominence to this new organisation, he is going to get it into the Bill, and I think he ought to be satisfied with that. As far as I am concerned I do not attach much importance to the examinations of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but I do attach importance to the examinations of the Board laid down in the Schedule to this proposed Act of Parliament.

Mr. BRACKEN: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton), in his attempts to justify his Amendment, has indulged in a most blood-curdling tale of the iniquities of the Royal Institute of British Architects. He has made all sorts of charges against it which really cannot be sustained. As a beginning, he tells us that it is a snobbish institution and a close corporation. I do not think he said it was "a snobbish institution"; it was one of his friends who supplied that adjective, and he adopted it as his own.

Mr. WINTERTON: On the contrary, unlike my hon. Friend who, I think, also comes from the north of Britain, I am more careful and deliberate in the choice of language than my hon. Friend on the right.

Mr. BRACKEN: I will not enter into questions of geography with the hon. Member, but I say these attacks on the Royal Institute of British Architects are most unworthy. As Members of this House we ought to remember that this Chamber was built by Sir Charles Barry, who was the son of a poor itinerant book-
seller. He went into the architectural profession with nothing, and eventually became President of the Royal Institute of British Architects. To throw about unworthy charges of its being a close corporation and of its snobbery degrades the House and does no justice to whatever motives lie behind the opposition to this Bill. No doubt many hon. Members have received a letter this morning protesting against this Bill from the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, which indulges in the most wild charges. It begins in a way which may commend itself to some Members of the House:
To you as a Member of Parliament, a lover of justice, and a defender of the rights of the people, I appeal.
Then it goes on to make quite unsustainable charges against the Royal Institute of British Architects. This organisation, which we are told is to be regarded as quite as eminent as the Royal Institute of British Architects, has a most curious council. Its president is Sir Edwin Lutyens, who is probably the greatest architect alive in these islands, and who, I consider, has done more to increase the loveliness of this country than any architect of our time. But Sir Edwin Lutyens is a genius, and his translation from the Royal Institute of British Architects to this organisation is rather an instance of the artistic temperament than any evidence of his genuine love for educational work in architecture. I notice, also, the name of the Duke of Marlborough. I have a great respect for the Duke of Marlborough; he is a friend of mine and has one of the most beautiful houses in England; but I could not regard the Duke of Marlborough as being an architectural authority. Then we see the name of a late Member of this House, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, whom we have never regarded as being an architectural authority. There are also the names of a number of members of another place. That in itself seems to be a little bit snobbish. It is outrageous that this organisation should search the country for vice-presidents and yet not select a single Member of this unfortunate Chamber.

Mr. McSHANE: The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) is a Member of this House.

Mr. BRACKEN: There are also the names of Lord Colwyn, Lord Rutherford, Sir William Bragg and others, but the only name which really commends itself to the House is that of the distinguished Scottish Member sitting below me and I take it that he himself is there in his capacity as an engineer and not as an educationist in architecture. This Amendment has been brought forward, I maintain, simply as a wrecking Amendment. It will break up the whole purpose of the Bill. I have no brief for the Royal Institute of British Architects, but I feel it is essential that this particular Clause should remain intact, because the whole question of our architectural education is at stake. We cannot strike out an essential Clause and leave the whole position unregulated.
We shall be doing great harm if we do not make this Bill as taut as possible. I should have thought its object would have commended itself to the Labour party. All over the country there are boys and girls whose parents are sacrificing considerable sums in order that they may be educated. Some of these boys and girls have won scholarships. By striking out this Clause we are saying that any person, a tinker, an undertaker, or any sort of charlatan, can call himself an architect and practise in competition with thoroughly qualified young men and women who have spent four or five years in an educational school such as the University of Liverpool architectural school, or the school, in connection with the London University. The best thing I can say about the Clause is that two of the most eminent teachers of architecture in this country, Professor Reilly, of the Liverpool University and Professor Richardson of London University who have done more for architectural education than almost any others in the country, have both said that the Clause is absolutely vital for the education of young architects and for assuring them a decent career. Hon. Members opposite had their run in Committee and were defeated, and I appeal to them now to accept the Clause and allow us to do tardy justice to a great profession.

Mr. McSHANE: The excellent speech of the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) is vitiated in this respect,
that he has attended the Committee only once or twice and that his knowledge of the Bill is almost entirely negligible.

Mr. BRACKEN: On a point of Order. I attended the Committee very regularly, and, as for my knowledge of the Bill, I do not think that is very relevant to the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. McSHANE: If the hon. Member's knowledge of the Bill is not relevant to this argument, I will leave the matter there.

Mr. BRACKEN: I said relevant to "your argument."

Mr. McSHANE: I strongly resent the fact that the four or five months' sincere work which I have put in to try to make this a decent Bill should be interpreted in the way it has been. I care not a scrap for the Royal Institute of British Architects or the other association, but I claim that when I have finished with this Clause 7 no hon. Member on the other side of the House will be found willing to support its retention in the Bill. That is a serious and a strong statement to make. It has been well said that this Clause is the heart and core of the Bill. During the past day or two extraordinary social pressure has been brought to bear with a view to securing that this Bill shall pass. Architects in general are placed in a position to bring great social pressure upon hon. Members. I have here a letter from a local secretary, saying:
Architects (Registration) Bill.
The Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill will probably be taken in the House of Commons on Friday morning, the 17th day of April. I enclose a stamped postcard, and shall be glad if you will kindly complete this and address it to your local Member of Parliament at the House of Commons and post not later than the 15th April.
It is of special importance that Members residing in the Division of Mr. W. T. Kelly, M.P. for Rochdale, and Mr. Guy Rowson, M.P. for Farnworth, should comply with the above request.
P.S.—I am enclosing an additional two postcards, and should be glad if you would kindly have same completed either by your wife or professionally interested friends.
I do not see why that request should be restricted to a man's wife, and I do not see why his uncles and his aunts should not be brought in. A good deal
of pressure has also been brought upon hon. Members who have been trying to make this Measure into a decent Bill. I am afraid that those who make up the membership of the Royal Institute of British Architects have been deluded by the pressure which has been brought to bear upon them. Only those who have been closely associated with the work of the Committee can speak with authority on the Bill. I will try to put before hon. Members an explanation of our position, although we have been condemned in advance and personal motives have been attributed to us. I am in favour of the registration of architects, but I want to see the public protected. If this Bill had passed as it was introduced on the Second Reading, it would have been nothing short of a public scandal. I claim credit along with my hon. Friends for having, in a large measure, prevented that from happening. Unless Clause 7 is radically dealt with this morning, there will be no working-class boy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—who will ever have the chance of moulding another building as beautiful as the one in which we are assembled.
I will now deal with Clause 7, and I ask hon. Members carefully to follow my argument. First of all, the Board of Architectural Education is in the Bill but not of the Bill. It is in the Bill, but the Council have no control whatever over that board, and I challenge any hon. Member to deny that statement. I challenge the promoters of the Bill to say explicitly that any activities of that board are under the authority of the Council. The Council is under the authority of the board. Clause 7 says:
The council shall recognise as examinations under this Section examinations, the passing of which is or may be recognised for exemption from the final examination of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
1.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) made an excellent speech in which he said that not even the universities should have a permanent hallmark in this Bill. May I point out that the Royal Institute of British Architects are demanding in this Bill—and will get it if the Measure passes—a permanent hall-mark in the Bill. As an organisation, I have nothing against
the Royal Institute of British Architects. I have not a friend nor an enemy in that body, and to me it is an impersonal organisation. It is, however, a trade union, and I protest that the House of Commons should give to a trade union a power over and above and beyond the supreme power of the Council. The Board of Architectural Education is a chartered instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am not attacking that organisation as such, and I am not pleading for this or that association, but I am asking that the class from which I sprang shall be protected. I repeat my statement that the Board of Architectural Education is the chartered instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Here is the charter from which I will quote Clause 4:
Subject to the by-laws for the time being, the Council shall formulate and from time to time alter and amend a scheme or curriculum for education in architecture and may appoint in relation thereto such boards or committees (whether or not consisting wholly of members of the Royal Institute) as may from time to time be prescribed by by-laws, and the Council may apply the funds of the Royal Institute in making provision for and furthering and developing any such scheme or curriculum, and in providing for lectures or teaching, and for the holding of examinations in accordance therewith, and for granting certificates in connection therewith and (subject to such exemptions as may be allowed by or in accordance with the by-laws) no person shall in or after the year 1913 become entitled to admission for the final examination for associateship of the Royal Institute unless he shall have passed through a course of study under or in accordance with such scheme or curriculum.
The point that I make is that this is a chartered instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects. When was it introduced, and why is it pressed now with such insistence? The reason is this. The Admission Committee was originally a statutory committee, but, in Committee upstairs, we got it put under the control of the council; and then, as another way out of the difficulty in which they found themselves, it was insisted that this chartered instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects should be inserted in the Bill—not under the control of the council, but the council would have to accept its demands and its orders, instead of vice versa. That is a position which no House of Commons could allow to be maintained. The hon.
Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said that, if it could be shown that the result would be to form a close corporation, he would not assent to it.
A memorandum has been sent out by another organisation, not of architects, but the Institute of Builders, and I regret that that memorandum does not seem to have had the close attention that it merits in connection with this matter. It gives the history of this Board of Architectural Education, and it says this:
It will be seen from Clause 7 that the Bill provides, first, that the Registration Council"—
that is the dominant authority of the Bill—
must accept for recognition the examinations recommended by only one board of education. It provides that the Registration Council shall employ"—
not may—
only one examining board, and that the Registration Council shall have no authority to regulate the decisions of the Board of Architectural Education.
I want to go further. This Bill in its purpose is a Registration Bill; that is accepted; and no Registration Bill ever passed in this House, whether in relation to doctors, dentists, or nurses, containing within it an educational or examining instrument. There is being inserted into this Bill a wing or an instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects, whose main purpose is to control the examinations in its own trade union interests. Is there anyone who doubts that?
I have here an extract from a report issued by the Royal Institute of British Architects in about the year 1927, on the question of overcrowding in the architectural profession. It is a report by a joint committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Association of Architects, Surveyors and Technical Assistants; and I want hon. Members to associate that question of overcrowding with the power that it is now proposed to give to this instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects. The report says:
There are to-day some 12,000 architects, including 1,300 pupils and students, in England and Wales, as against 7,000 40 years ago. These figures are obtained from the census returns, and represent an increase of 70.65 per cent. The population of
England and Wales has increased from 26,000,000 to 38,000,000 during the same period, representing an increase of 46.15 per cent. In other words, there is to-day one architect or potential architect to every 3,167 of the population of England and Wales, compared with one to 3,714 40 years ago. It appears, therefore, that the number of architects who describe themselves as such in the census returns has risen in a greater proportion than the population during the past 40 years. Admitting that these figures are incapable of absolute proof, the Joint Committee feel that at least as many men are entering the profession as the profession can at the present time absorb.
What is the significance of that? I am anxious that this Bill should go through as a decent Registration Bill for all architects, but let it be remembered that the membership of the Royal Institute of British Architects numbers somewhere about 7,000 architects, so that, by this Clause, complete power is to be given into the hands of that organised body of 7,000, not merely of examination, but of moulding the curriculum and raising the standard of education so that no lad of my class will have any opportunity whatever of entering the profession. The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green said that we need not worry about that, that the Board of Architectural Education in the Second Schedule was to be settled when we came to it, and that we could put in what we chose. But that Board of Architectural Education is a chartered body, and you can put in whom you please. An hon. Member shakes his head. May I ask him—

Sir ROBERT GOWER: The Board of Architectural Education to be set up by this Measure is an entirely different body from the body to which the hon. Member has been referring. The Board of Architectural Education for the purposes of this Measure is constituted in the Schedule. I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member, and confess that I have been unable to follow him.

Mr. McSHANE: I challenge the promoter of the Bill to say that the Board of Architectural Education in this Bill is not the chartered instrument to which I have referred.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does the hon. Member's question call for a reply, or shall I deal with the matter in my speech later?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): If the answer be a simple negative or otherwise, the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to say so, but it would form a very bad precedent if, when challenges were offered by hon. Members, they were continually answered by the hon. Members to whom they were offered.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I thought that perhaps the hon. Member's question might be a rhetorical question, which really needed no answer.

Mr. McSHANE: I thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the forbearance which you have shown towards me. I do not want to put a rhetorical question; I demand a plain answer to a plain question, when the promoter of this Bill is replying, as to whether that Board of Architectural Education is the chartered body I have referred to, and whether it has not had a charter from the year 1913. I demand an answer to that question when the hon. and gallant Member replies, and I would ask hon. Members to note whether the answer is "Yes" or "No."
I was dealing with the effects of this proposal. If this instrument be given the power which it is proposed to give to it upon the council, making the council subordinate to it, then that body will have a complete, close, corporative grip on all interests in the architectural profession from now onwards. If I may strike a personal note, I would say this. I left school at 14. I worked in a wagon works till I was 21. At night school I studied from the age of 16 onwards every night till I was 21. I got home at six in the evening, sat up studying till two in the morning, and got up at five in the morning, and, at long last, after an indescribable time, I got to the University. I say that no lad in that position can ever hope in the future, if this Clause be passed, whatever may be his study in the building trade at technical institutions at night, to become an architect.
Hon. Members on this side of the House who opposed the Second Reading, and who, for some strange reason, supported some of the proposals made during the Committee stage, opposed it on that ground, and they were assured by the hon. and gallant Member that those points would be seen to in Committee. We did try to do that. We had an
Amendment providing that 30 per cent. of the fees should be given in order to enable scholarship lads to go forward. It was ruled out of order, because that is not the purpose of the Bill, which is a Registration Bill, and, indeed, I questioned, on a point of order, whether it could be made an educational instrument. I have here a speech of the hon. Member for Salford, a very eloquent speech indeed, with regard to this matter, in which he said:
There ought to be no class bias. If I felt that the ordinary worker had not as much opportunity to contribute his brains and skill and experience to this great profession, I should be the last to support this Measure.
It was promised by the promoters that something should be done for that. I challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to show me in the Bill that anything has been done to give special facilities for working lads. There is nothing. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) said just now that, if a certain Amendment were accepted, he would be prepared to accept that. I am not prepared to accept that on behalf of the public and on behalf of the class from which I have sprung. He made a speech also in which he asked that special provision should be made and special guarantees given for that. The speech of the Under-Secretary on behalf of the Government was also significant. He said:
On the other hand, there is criticism from many that by virtue of a Measure of this kind we are apt to create a very close corporation, and many people in these days view that with great suspicion,
We are entitled to regard the matter from a different point of view from the powers extended to the medical profession, the dentists or the legal profession, and this Bill gives a decided advantage to architects over and above the medical profession, the legal profession, the nurses' profession, or the dental profession:
It would be unfortunate if art should be robbed of the greatest artists merely because they were not registered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1930; col. 1278, Vol. 244.]
There is another argument. I hope I speak with some knowledge and authority as an educationist. This is an educational instrument inserted in a Bill which will help to mould architectural education
and all education in this country. It is of the very essence of architectural education that it is a creative art. To attempt to mould it and to make it rigid would be the maddest folly in the eyes of any educationist. That also is the purpose of the Bill. I am a registered teacher, and I want to see men who are architects given proper safeguards, and I want the public to be protected, but I beg hon. Members to cut out all ideas of any association from their mind. I know the Bill from the first word to the last. If it it passed in its present form, for many a year those who come after us will say it is incredible that the British House of Commons gave such powers. Our position has been simplicity. When the Bill first went upstairs, I said, "Give me an independent council representative of the architects and the allied and kindred interests and the public. Let that council appoint its own committees, its admission committee, its registration committee, its discipline committee, and you can have your Bill." That was surely a fair offer. It is perfectly straightforward and simple. It is because that was not granted that these interminable difficulties have been caused and devious means have been adopted to get forward what should have been a plain, simple instrument for giving I label and qualification to architects.
Whatever our political views may be, I know that hon. Members above and below the Gangway have as great an anxiety and desire to protect the public and working-class children in regard to education in this respect as I have. I beg of them to see that that Board of Architectural Education, above the council in its authority, dictating to the council in its authority, not only getting complete control and grip of the entrants, but moulding the architectural education for many years to come—I beg hon. Members opposite, who may differ from me often politically, to understand that I am prompted only by the sincere desire to give a decent opportunity to working-class lads and girls who may come forward in the future, and also to protect the interests of the great public.

Mr. W. J. STEWART: I rise to support the Amendment. When the Bill was being read a Second time and it was going to be opposed, I felt very diffident about speaking on the matter, but I did
my best to get the opposition withdrawn. The promoter made this statement:
I am authorised on behalf of the promoters to say that, if the Bill is sent to Committee after having received Second Reading, we shall be prepared to meat any reasonable suggestions which will make the Bill a better, more efficient or more effective weapon to secure the object that we have in view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1930; col. 1261, Vol. 244.]
I know my hon. and gallant Friend will say that he has done so. From the beginning this has been the contentious Clause in the Bill. This Educational Board is the authority in the Bill. All that we want is that it shall be subject to the council. There is an elaborate council established, but its powers are taken away, because the Clause says:
If on the advice of the Board of Architectural Education.
The council can only act on the advice of this Board of Architectural Education which, therefore, is the supreme body in the Bill. It is appointed by the council of the Royal Institute of British Architects, so that we shall have the council of the Institute of British Architects, which is the supreme authority, in the Bill made a statutory authority.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The council of the Royal Institute of British Architects will not enter into the Bill at all.

Mr. STEWART: Not directly but indirectly, in that they appoint the architectural board. I want my hon. and gallant Friend to see if he cannot do what I think is a reasonable thing, and make this council, which is a representative body, and which we have gone to great trouble to get made a representative body supreme. The admission committee is subject to the council. Why then make the council subject to the Board of Architectural Education? That is the whole of the difficulty that we have to meet, and that is what is causing the confusion. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said the Board of Architectural Education is a very large body and, as such is representative. My objection to it is that it is far too large. An ad hoc body is one that has few interests in common. It is appointed from different bodies but their interest is in only the one thing for which they are appointed. If members belonging to any particular body, teachers, architects or
anyone else, come together they have many things in common. It means that this Board of Architectural Education is really a committee which is in existence at the present time, and it is the supreme body in this Bill.
I reiterate what has been said that the Registration Council must recognise the examination of only one organisation. They must employ only one examining body, and that is the examining body which is not subject to the authority of the council mentioned in the Bill. The council can only act upon the advice of the examining body. The Clause is not necessary at all, because Clause 5 makes provision for doing all that is necessary. The Bill will stand as a unit without the present Clause.

Sir M. MACDONALD: May I appeal to the promoters of the Amendment, and also to the promoters of the Bill, to see whether the point of both parties cannot be met by a very small alteration in the middle of Clause 7, where it says:
The council shall recognise as examinations under this Section examinations … of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
I think the position would be met if the word "shall" were removed and the word "may" inserted in its place. The Clause would then read:
The council may recognise as examinations under this Section.
If that were done, the apparent hold of the Royal Institute of British Architects over the council would be removed, because the council would be empowered to accept their examinations or not as they thought fit. I make this suggestion, and I hope that both the promoters of the Bill and of the Amendment will accept it.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: As this discussion proceeds my astonishment increases. One hears statements of fact made here with great assertiveness by Members who have given many hours to this Bill upstairs which cannot be supported by the text of the Bill we are discussing. At this moment, we are being asked to believe that the Bill, as it stands, restricts the examinations contemplated by the board to the examinations of the Royal Institute of British Architects. That is not correct. I invite hon. Members to look at the Clause which we are discussing. A great deal of
prejudice has been imported into this discussion. Let us try and get clear of it and look at the actual words which are before us. In Clause 7, page 4, line 23, it says:
The council shall recognise as examinations under this section examinations, the passing of which is or may be recognised for exemption from the final examination of the Royal Institute of British Architects,
One would suppose that there the Section ended if we listen to some hon. Members, but it goes on to say:
and on the advice of the education board the council shall recognise as examinations under this Section examinations for the time being organised and held at any school of architecture.
How any Member of this House can get up and represent that the examinations contemplated in this Bill are examinations conducted only by the Royal Institute of British Architects passes my comprehension, when I look at the actual terms of the Measure. What is the authority under this Clause which has to give the advice for the inclusion of these further examinations? If hon. Members will look at the Second Schedule, they will find that the education board is constituted on remarkable lines. No section of this great profession and no body of organised representatives who have relative interests is left outside the composition of the board.

Mr. McELWEE: Will my hon. Friend explain who are the people who are recognised? Who are the people indicated by the words in the Schedule:
The passing of whose examinations is or may be recognised.
Are they the Board of Architectural Education?

Mr. KNIGHT: As I read the Bill, I understand that the whole of the examinations for which provision is made are to be recognised on the advice of the Board of Architectural Education.

Mr. McSHANE: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House.
The council shall recognise as examinations.
That is the first reference, and further:
If on the advice of the Board of Architectural Education …. constituted for the purposes of this Act in manner prescribed in the Second Schedule to this Act, and to be appointed annually by the council, the pre-
scribed qualifications include the passing of any examinations, the council shall provide for the holding by the education board"—
which is not under the control of the council and over which the council has no control or influence whatever.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am very anxious, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept the assurance, to get this Bill through the House to-day. I have received numerous communications from architects in the cities of Nottingham and Derby, and in the whole of the Midlands begging me to do what I can to-day to assist in passing the Bill, and I have risen now merely for that purpose. I have confined myself to two questions of fact with which my hon. Friend dealt in eloquent terms and on which, I think, he unintentionally misled the House. In misleading the House, it may well be that in his own mind he is not quite clear as to the intentions of the Bill. The first question I think I have already established by referring the House to the actual words in the Bill. It is not correct to say that the examinations contemplated by this Bill are only examinations of the Royal Institute of British Architects, because the Bill goes on to provide for other examinations. The second question of fact is as to the composition of the board which is the authority under the Bill to which further examinations shall be referred.
When I gave way to my hon. Friend whose devotion to this matter we all recognise, I was directing the attention of the House to the Second Schedule of the Bill which sets up the authority which recognises the examinations. I was asking the House to realise that this authority is constituted on the widest and most responsible lines. It includes representatives of the Workers' Education Association—I am speaking as an old member of the national executive of that body—representatives of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, the Art Workers' Guild, and all sorts of bodies whose interests are directed to the great profession of architecture. I ask the House to say that the composition of that authority, which is to determine what further examinations shall be held under this Bill, is of such a character as to satisfy this House and that the widest possible limits have been searched to
bring within the ambit of the Bill all interests, all classes and all sections of the community which ought to be included. I know that it is the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) to achieve that object, and I appeal to him to realise that everything has been done to effect those purposes. This is my first intervention in the discussion. Here is an opportunity for the House to lay the foundations of a great and enterprising profession, on which are built the hopes of countless men and women who are devoting their energies to this high cause, and I plead with the House to pass as rapidly as it can to the remaining stages of this Bill in order that those hopes shall not be defeated.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I do not want to take up the time of the House, but one or two very definite questions were put to me which I should like to answer. I was asked by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) in what way I or my Friends seek to provide facilities so that a poor boy may find a happier and easier way into the architectural profession. An Amendment was put down in Committee by some of the hon. Member's Friends, to the effect that 50 per cent. of the fees which were paid by applicants for registration on the register should be devoted to bursaries and scholarships for those of inadequate means. Unfortunately, owing to the wording of the Amendment and the place where it was sought to insert it, the Chairman had to rule it out of order. This morning, however, we have devised a fresh Amendment, which I am happy to say will be put before the House. It is on the lines which the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) and others had in view.
The hon. Member for Walsall also asked me whether there was a charter for the Board of Architectural Education. Of course, there is no charter. We are only setting up that body under this Bill. There was a charter for the Royal Institute of British Architects and its ramifications, but the board in that case was a body solely dominated by the institute. The board which we propose in
the Bill is an independent Board of Architectural Education, and at this moment it has no charter of any kind. The hon. Member for Walsall also referred to a statement made in Committee to the effect that the London County Council had approved of this Bill, and he said that that was subsequently denied by the late chairman of the County Council. I have taken the opportunity to look up the minutes of the London County Council for the 18th May, 1927, and I find that the statement in the minutes is as follows:
The Board of Architectural Education set up by the Royal Institute of British Architects has been in operation for some time and is of a widely representative character, as is indicated above.
The County Council were discussing this Bill. Finally, they passed a resolution:
That the provisions of the Architects (Registration) Bill be approved on educational grounds, and that the Parliamentary Committee be so informed.

Mr. WINTERTON: That is not the point that I raised. The hon. and gallant Member is referring to something which I did not state.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Then I have given an extra piece of information.

Mr. WINTERTON: What I said was that Sir Robert Tasker, Chairman of the London County Council, had written a letter in which he said:
The only examinations"—
We are talking about examinations by this particular private institution which are to be exalted into pre-eminence by the Bill—
held by the Royal Institute of British Architects during the past six years, when I was chairman of the Building Acts Committee, 1924–1929, and discussed by the Building Acts Committee or the Council, related to the examination of candidates for the office of district surveyor. The Committee were so dissatisfied with the ability of men who were examined by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and held their diploma, that the council decided to hold examinations themselves.
Yet it is those examinations which, under Clause 7, the Council shall accept.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The hon. Member's argument is really in favour of the Bill. The whole object of the Bill is to raise the standard of architecture and examinations, so as to produce a
better type of architect in the future than has been the case in the past. When the Bill has been passed, that result will be achieved. I should like to tell the House how the Board of Architectural Education came to be established. Over 25 years ago there was no such board. There were various schools operating all over the country and various individuals with architectural ideals were in various branches developing on these lines. There were many organisations such as polytechnics and technical institutions, but there was no co-ordinating link. The Royal Institute of British Architects, therefore, felt that they were justified in taking up what ultimately proved to be probably their greatest task, that of co-ordinating, revitalising and directing these various schools on one common line and subscribing to one common standard of education. It was only a standard of education and in no way restricted architectural development. That went on for a short time and then it extended to such a degree that the Institute felt that it was getting beyond their hands, and they put it in charge of the Board of Architectural Education. That is how the board started. It consisted of representatives touching every side of architectural education, and it brought democracy into the educational side, which was all to the good.

Mr. McSHANE: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but his arguments are irrelevant.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make two speeches.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The board has worked for 25 years to the complete satisfaction of every architectural student, every architect and every architectural organisation. It is a body that has advised His Majesty's Government. The London County Council goes to it for advice and are represented on it. All these efforts are to be suddenly scrapped, we are to undo the work which has slowly and wearily evolved during 25 years and to hand over the duties of this great organisation, this widespread, widely-represented democratic organisation, to a committee of this new purely professional council. You are stereotyping architectural education by the Amendment and it is for that reason mainly
that I suggest that the House should reject it. I could say a lot more on this subject, but as we have spent over an hour considering this question I hope that we may now come to a decision.

Miss RATHBONE: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether it would be within the power of this body to limit the number of entrants to the profession? Will they also be able to set up a standard of education as well as limit the number of entrants? Would it be possible, for example, for this body to say that women should not be allowed to enter the profession?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: No, the hon. Lady is quite wrong. As a matter of fact, we have brought in the Union of Headmistresses in order to look after the interests of women.

Miss RATHBONE: It is not only a question of sex, but a question of numbers. Will it be within the power of this body to limit the number of entrants?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: No.

Mr. McELWEE: I am not quite clear as to the functions of this Board even after the explanation that has been given. It must get its instruction from some other body or council. It is a hotchpotch, which is simply a device of the council to create a privilege for itself. It seems that the council is to set up an Education Board and that it is then going to take instructions from the Board. If that is the position it requires some elucidation and simplification if it is going to be satisfactory. I am not against the registration of architects, but I object to a special privilege being given to the profession. I am quite willing that it should be put on the same basis as the teaching profession and protected in the same way. The hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill became rhetorical and told us that all that has been said by those who are opposing the Bill was moonshine. He told me on one occasion outside the House that he had the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives in his pocket—

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Oh, no.

Mr. McELWEE: I think I am entitled to put that construction upon what he said. The National Federation
of Building Trade Operatives have no authority to speak for the building trades in this matter. I am a member of the building trade and I have never been consulted as to my attitude towards this Bill. My attitude has been guided by the result of my experience as a member of a Scotish education authority. One of our most difficult tasks is to advise boys what to do when they reach the age of 16 and 17. I have had to tell them to carry on at the evening school, where there is a course in building and engineering which may lead to naval engineering and to architecture, but if this Bill goes through and you leave the control in the hands of the Institute of Architects—

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: No Member of the Royal Institute of British Architects is mentioned in the Board of Architectural Education at all, nor need there be a single member of the Royal Institute of British Architects on the board.

Mr. McELWEE: I am aware of that, but if they are the puppets of the Royal Institute of British Architects it is just as bad. I do not think we should stultify our evening school education in this way. We are spending money on developing evening school education, and we are going to allow the Institute of Architects to shut the door on pupils who may have the ability to go from one stage to another until they become the 20th century successors of the late Sir Charles Barry. If we allow these channels to be closed and are going to rely on the universities and other public schools it will not be in the interests of architecture. If the Amendment is rejected, I hope we shall be given an independent body not subordinate to the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 54.

Division No. 213.]
AYES.
[1.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Leach, W.


Albery, Irving James
Ferguson, Sir John
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fermoy, Lord
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Ammon, Charles George
Foot, Isaac
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Arnott, John
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Berry, Sir George
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mathers, George


Bird, Ernest Roy
Glassey, A. E.
Milner. Major J.


Blindell, James
Gould, F.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Granville, E.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gray, Milner
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mort, D. L.


Bracken, B.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muff, G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Grundy, Thomas w.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brothers, M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oldfield, J. R.


Buchan, John
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Owen. H. F. (Hereford)


Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Palin, John Henry.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Harris, Percy A.
Paling, Wilfrid


Burgess, F. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haycock, A. W.
Penny, Sir George


Campbell, E. T.
Hayes, John Henry
Perry, S. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Pole, Major D. G.


Chater, Daniel
Hoffman, P. C.
Potts, John S.


Church, Major A. G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pybus, Percy John


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Isaacs, George
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Davison, sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Remer, John R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Knight, Holford
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Duncan, Charles
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Ede, James Chuter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ross, Ronald D.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lathan, G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Westwood, Joseph


Sandeman, Sir N, Stewart
Sutton, J. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sawyer, G. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sexton, Sir James
Thomson, Sir F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sherwood, G. H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Withers, Sir John James


Simms, Major-General J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Womersley, W. J.


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Walkden, A. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Walker, J.



Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Sir Robert Gower and Lieut.-Colonel Moore.


Smithers, Waldron
Watkins, F. C.



Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
West, F. R.



NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, w. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Rowson, Guy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sandham, E.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Cameron, A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Simmons, C. J.


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cove, William G.
Lees, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Daggar, George
Longden, F.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Deviln, Joseph
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wallace, H. w.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Wellock, Wilfred


Freeman, Peter
McElwee, A.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McEntee, V. L.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, Thomas E.
Manning, E. L.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marley, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Matters, L. W.
Mr. Winterton and Mr. March.

CLAUSE 8.—(Removal of name from Register.)

Mr. McELWEE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, after the word "Act," to insert the words:
one of whom shall be a person practising in Scotland.
I do not know why I have been selected to move this Amendment, except that it—

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: To save time I will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Power to make regulations).

Mr. BRACKEN: I beg to move, in page 8, line 2, to leave out from the word "that," to the end of line 7, and to insert instead thereof the words:
out of the total amount received in such fees annually by the council a sum of not less than 50 per cent. must be devoted in each year by the council for the purpose of providing scholarships and maintenance grants for the assistance of students of inadequate means.
I think the whole House will agree with the principle of this Amendment. It is a proposal that half the fees of registration should be spent on scholarships and grants to enable poor boys or girls to go to the universities or schools.

Mr. WINTERTON: On a point of Order. I am not quarrelling with the spirit of this Amendment because we, the critics of the Bill, made this suggestion ourselves, but I wish to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether, in the consideration of these Amendments we have now passed from Clause 8 to Clause 15 because on Clause 11 there are some Amendments which are of drafting character and which I submit ought obviously to be considered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All the Amendments on the Order Paper to the previous Clauses which were to be selected have been called, and the Amendment which has now been moved comes in its proper place at this stage.

Mr. WINTERTON: With great respect may I point out that Mr. Speaker at an earlier stage indicated that Amendments of a purely drafting character, to correct obvious omissions made in the Committee stage, should be accepted and that, so far, every such Amendment has been accepted by the promoters.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot allow the matter to be debated. The last Amendment which I called was on Clause 8. The next Amendment on the Paper is to Clause 11, page 6, line 8, but
that Amendment is not selected and has not been called. The first Amendment on the Order Paper after that which I select is that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs to Clause 15, page 8, line 16, after the first "the" to insert "Education." The hon. Member misunderstands. Only those Amendments selected are called and he is not entitled to question the discretion of the Chair. The Amendment now before us is to leave out the words from "that" down to the end of line 7 and to insert the words which I have already read.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this Amendment is in order? The Amendment proposes to leave out the proviso in Sub-section (1) of Clause 15 and the effect of the proviso is to limit the fees and charges to such amount as is necessary to cover the expenses of the Council. The Amendment also proposes to substitute words to the effect that half the sum raised in this manner is to be devoted to scholarships. In other words, the sum to be raised must be at least double the amount necessary to cover the expenses of the Council. Is it in order at this stage of the Bill to increase the charge to be made under this Clause, because that is the effect of the Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not a capital charge on the Treasury. I may also say that before Mr. Speaker left the Chair I consulted him about this Amendment and he concurred in the view that the Amendment was entirely in order.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 16, after the first word "the," insert the word "Education."

In page 8, line 18, after the first word "the" insert the word "Education."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore.]

In page 8, line 24, after the word "persons," insert the words "or organisations."—[Mr. McShane.]

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, after the second word "the," to insert the word "Privy."
This word is inserted in order to make it quite clear that the reference is to
the Privy Council, and not to the Council constituted under the Bill.

Sir R. GOWER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 38, after the second word "the," insert the word "Privy."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Saving for other bodies.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 35, after the word "member," insert the words "of the Institution of Civil Engineers, or."—[Sir M. Macdonald.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Application of Act to Scotland.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 16, after the word "Substitute," insert the word "and."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution of the Council.)

Mr. McSHANE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
(iii) One representative for each five hundred and portion of additional five hundred persons on the Register not being members of either the said institute or the said association, but being corporate members of an incorporated architectural society of national scope recognised by the council as an electoral body for the purposes of this Schedule of the Act, such representatives to be elected thereafter annually in the same proportion by the governing body of the said society.
I will not waste much time on this Amendment, for two reasons. First of all, if I may say so quite jocularly, when the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) raised the point of Order just now, he was showing that he was not entirely familiar with what we were doing, and unfortunately that is true of a large number of Members, necessarily, who have not been in Committee on the Bill.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: When the hon. Member makes that charge against me, perhaps he will explain what he means.

Mr. McSHANE: I mean what I said when I was speaking on the question of the Board of Architectural Education, that it is very difficult for us who have been dealing with this Bill upstairs to
explain to Members who have not been intimately associated with it in that way the precise pros and cons of the arguments there adduced.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member said that I did not understand the Bill. He is mistaken. I understood the Bill perfectly, and if he thinks I did not, perhaps he will explain to me where I was wrong. I was not wrong in my understanding of the Bill, but in my appreciation of the point of Order.

Mr. McSHANE: That is precisely what I was getting at. I said that the right hon. Gentleman had not known what had been dealt with at that time, and it was not for me, but for the Deputy-Speaker, to correct him; and, after all, my remark, as I said, was jocular. The first two paragraphs of this Schedule deal with two of the associations that exist at the present time, and those two associations do not cover even a half of the number of architects in this country. There are approximately 20,000 architects an this country, and if I give the generous number to the Royal Institute of British Architects of about 7,000 and 2,000 or 3,000 to the other associations, that only makes about 10,000, so that there are still another 10,000; and this is a provision, if there is another association formed, to enable them to become part and parcel of the General Council.

Mr. BRACKEN: Before we pass this Amendment, I should like to comment upon the curious argument which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane). He is, I understand, a teacher, and I am very glad indeed that this wide space is between me and his pedagogic arm, because I tell the House frankly that the language that he has used to the distinguished gentleman the late foreign Secretary and to other Members of this House to-day is really intolerable. He has told us that we know nothing about the Bill, but this insolent pedagogic omniscience is not language that commends itself to the House. This particular Clause is vital to the Bill, and I feel sure that everyone will agree that we must set up a system of education and registration which is watertight. This particular Clause to which objection is taken is vital to the whole Bill, and I hope that in order to facilitate the pas-
sage of the Bill, the House will accept this principle and oppose an Amendment which is really wrecking in its intention.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: As will be seen from the Bill, the Schedule shows that this new council will consist of architect members, and after all, this is a Bill for the registration of architects. I therefore cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: I should like to know—

Major LLEWELLIN: On a point of Order. Did not the hon. Member second the Amendment?

Mr. WINTERTON: No.

Sir R. GOWER: He distinctly rose and said something.

Mr. KELLY: It was seconded by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I certainly took the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) as seconding it.

Mr. BRACKEN: I asked if the hon. Member opposite did second it. I certainly did not second it myself.

Mr. WINTERTON: The hon. Member, with an impulsiveness which is rather noticeable and which I am sure all of us admire, managed to get in first. It was my intention to second the Amendment, but, seeing him rise, I naturally gave way. However, I am pleased to see that even inadvertently he has accepted the principle of the Amendment. In fact, I gather that he is asking the House to support it. My hon. Friends agree that his speech was really in support of this addition to the Schedule, and, late a recruit though he be to the penitent form, we welcome him gladly in order to strengthen our somewhat depleted forces.
This Amendment, if accepted, would very considerably shorten the discussion on the Bill, because it would mean that some of the other associations to whom it is sought to give special representation in the Schedule—which hon. Members will see we desire to alter by a considerable number of deletions—would be met by this provision. For instance, there is the Faculty of Architects, and there is the Architectural Association,
and there is quite a number of somewhat small and, I think I may say, not national bodies, or semi-national bodies, which the promoters of this Bill have felt that they desire to placate by giving them representation on the Council. If this comprehensive and general Amendment is accepted, it will mean that a good many of the other deletions which we are suggesting would naturally be accepted without any long controversy or discussion.
There are more architects in the country than those who have already been brought into the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Incorporated Society of Architects and Surveyors, the Faculty of Architects, the Architectural Association, and other smaller bodies. Someone has suggested that we are legislating to-day for probably a good many years to come, and if any other association in the future get a membership of such considerable proportions as will entitle them, morally if not legally, to representation on the Council, this general Amendment will enable them to be represented. In fact, we suggest that this Sub-section would be a far better way of dealing with all the contending claims of some associations than by putting them in the Schedule as is suggested in the Bill.
What does this House know about the different organisations which are now in the Schedule? We have to take on trust the recommendations of the hon. and gallant Member who is promoting the Bill. He has never told us in Committee what these organisations are. He has never thought it necessary to give the Committee upstairs any kind of informa-

tion with regard to some of these bodies, for every 500 members of which they are to have representation on the council; and if, as I think, we shall be disposed to ask the hon. and gallant Member to tell us what is the character of each of these societies, what is its membership, what are its qualifications, perhaps we may not advance so rapidly with this Bill as if we were to accept this umbrella Amendment, if I may so call it, which will really meet the case of all the others which have not so far been included in the Schedule. I, therefore, appeal to hon. Members to follow the lead of the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken), and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member who is in charge of the Bill will accept this proposal, cutting out nobody, but putting in all who can satisfy the council that they have a legitimate claim to representation.

Major LLEWELLIN: I should have thought that the main object of this Bill was to weld architects more or less into one body, and not to encourage the setting up of a large number of additional associations. After all, architects have already the choice, as is to be seen in this Schedule, of five, or, including Ulster, six different branches of architectural bodies. It seems to me that any architect can find a home in one of these existing bodies, and that there is no need to cater for a body which can only arise in the imaginations of hon. Members who propose this Amendment. In these circumstances, I hope that the House will leave the Bill as it is.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, 182.

Division No. 214.]
AYES.
[2.29 p.m.


Alpass, J. H.
Hardie, George D.
Rowson, Guy


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Simms, Major-General J.


Burgess, F. G.
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Cameron, A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McElwee, A.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cove, William G.
McEntee, V. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Daggar, George
Manning, E. L.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Marley, J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Freeman, Peter
Matters, L. W.



Gould, F.
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Mr. McShane and Mr. March.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Blindell, James


Albery, Irving James
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Berry, Sir George
Bowen, J. w.


Ammon, Charles George
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Arnott, John
Bird, Ernest Roy
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.


Boyce, Leslie
Hicks, Ernest George
Raynes, W. R.


Bracken, B.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hirst, G. H. (York W.R. Wentworth)
Remer, John R.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hoffman, P. C.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Horrabin, J. F.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Buchan, John
Hurd, Percy A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Romeril, H. G.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Isaacs, George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Ross, Ronald D.


Campbell, E. T.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Rothschild, J. de


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Charleton, H. C.
Knight, Holford
Salmon, Major I.


Chater, Daniel
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Church, Major A. G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lathan, G.
Sandsman, Sir N. Stewart


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lawrence, Susan
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leach, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Duncan, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Edmunds, J. E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smithers, Waldron


Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Strauss, G. R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ferguson, Sir John
Marjoribanks, Edward
Sutton, J. E.


Foot, Isaac
Mathers, George
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mills, J. E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Thomson, Sir F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tillett, Ben


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Tinker, John Joseph


Glassey, A. E.
Mort, D. L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gower, sir Robert
Muff, G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gray, Milner
Muggeridge, H. T.
Walkden, A. G.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Muirhead, A. J.
Walker, J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Oldfield, J. R.
Watkins, F. C.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Westwood, Joseph


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Penny, Sir George
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Perry, S. [...]
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Withers, Sir John James


Harris, Percy A.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Womersley, W. J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pole, Major D. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Haycock, A. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hayes, John Henry
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben



Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Pybus, Percy John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Lieut.-Colonel Moore and Major Llewellin.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Rathbone, Eleanor



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Amendments made: In page 11, line 21, after the word "Surveyors," insert the words:
resident in the United Kingdom.
In line 26, after the word "(London)," insert the words:
resident in the United Kingdom and excluding student members.
In line 38, after the word "together," insert the words:
resident in the United Kingdom and not being members of the parent bodies."—[Mr. McShane.]

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 9, to leave out the word "Government," and to insert instead thereof the word "Governor."
This is a drafting Amendment, to provide that the appointment of one person shall be made by the Governor of Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir M. MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out line 15.
I am authorised to say on behalf of the Institute of Civil Engineers that they gave no authority for the insertion of their name in this list, and that they desire to have their name removed. I hope it is not the method of the promoters to put the names of institutions into the Schedule without collaboration with the institutions themselves in regard to the other members of the council that is being set up.

Sir R. GOWER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Constitution of the Education Board.)

Amendments made:

In page 15, leave out line 30.

In line 38, at the end, insert the word "(London)."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Constitution of the Admission Committee.)

Amendments made: In page 16, line 2, at the end, insert the words:
Part I.—Representative Bodies.
In line 7, at the end, insert the words:
Part II—Appointed Members."— [Lieut.-Colonel Moore.]

Mr. WINTERTON: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that we have now reached the Third Schedule and that there are some very essential drafting words to be put in? Obviously, you cannot have a Schedule covering the whole of the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, and the whole of the Society of Engineers, and of the Chartered Surveyors Institution, and so on. The Amendment of my hon. Friend would put that right. May I ask whether his purely drafting Amendment is accepted by the promoters?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It seemed obvious.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot go back.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in line 11, at the end, to add the words:
and four by the Faculty of Architects and Surveyors.
The Admission Committee consists of 12 members, of whom four are to be nominated by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and four by the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors. It does not say who the other four are to be. The Bill as it came to us from another place included the words:
and four by the Faculty of Architects and Surveyors.
In Committee the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton) moved that those words should be deleted, and they were struck out, but I think that was done without proper consideration, because the hon. Member put forward as one of his main arguments that the Faculty had no published list of its members, although I have one here in my hand, and he also put forward other points with which I need not deal in detail now. This Faculty includes more than 1,000 members and is a solid body; it is recognised in the constitution of the council in the First Schedule, and therefore I think there is every reason for restoring it to the Third Schedule. I believe the hon. and gallant Member who is promoting the Bill is in favour of the restitution of its name, and so, also, are the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: I made some statements in Committee regarding the Faculty of Architects and Surveyors which I desire to modify at any rate, because they were made on imperfect information, and I ask the indulgence of the House while I explain what I did say and in what particulars I was incorrect. I said, in opposing the inclusion of this body, that we had made some inquiries to discover what this body really represented and had been unable to find any evidence whatever as to its members or to discover any list of its members. I asked the Committee to note that there was no public information available as to the society, as to its membership, or as to the constitution of its membership, and there was no evidence that it possessed any code of professional conduct or that it charged any professional fees. Later I am reported as having said:
As far as we have been able to discover, the Secretary of this association is the Secretary of the National Association of Auctioneers, House Agents, Rating Surveyors and Valuers, and these two bodies, the Faculty of Architects and Surveyors and the one I have just mentioned, seem to be a kind of twin association."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), col. 231, 31st March, 1931.]
There is a modicum of truth in my statement, but it is incomplete, and in some particulars incorrect, and I want to make it clear that I was misled, though I made the statement in perfect good faith. I learn that there is a list of members of
the faculty and that it does publish a report, with a copy of which it has favoured me. It is true that it is a private list of members, and, therefore, I was correct in saying that there is no public information about it. It is not correct, apparently, that the secretary of the Faculty and the secretary of the Association of Auctioneers, House Agents and Rating Surveyors and Valuers is the same person. What is correct is that they both have the same telephone number and both apparently occupy the same suite of offices. It is also true that the secretary of one of the associations is one of the three members of the executive committee of the Faculty of Architects. So it was in the use of the word "secretary" rather than in the spirit of what I said that I was misleading. I have no desire to do any injustice to any association. These are points which may seem small to us in this House, but I do not wish to affect prejudicially the standing of any architectural association.
Coming to the Amendment, I cannot see that there is any reason why, of the 12 added members, we should give four to the Faculty of Architects. Look at the figures which have been quoted to us. We have had from the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) a very generous estimate of the membership of the Royal Institute of British Architects; he has put it at 7,000. The other association which has been named, and which also gets four members, has a membership of 2,000 or so. Surely the remaining four seats ought not to go to an organisation which, I think, has only 1,000 members. The idea of the Amendment which the promoters of the Bill accepted was that there should be a certain amount of elasticity in order that other architects might be added—unattached architects might find a place on this particular body. Therefore, I hope the House will not accept this Amendment, especially as the hon. and gallant Member has himself pointed out that this body has representation elsewhere.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I hope the Mover of this Amendment will modify it. It would be unfair to give such a large share of representation to so small a body. So far as I can ascertain, while there are about 1,300 members of this Faculty there are probably among them some 200 qualified architects, and it
would not be fair to give four members to represent 7,000 qualified architects who are members of the Royal Institute of British Architects and an equal number to represent 200 architects here. I am willing that the Faculty should be represented, but I think one member would be adequate, and I understand from the secretary of the Faculty that he would be satisfied with that representation.

Mr. McSHANE: I desire to associate myself with the opposition to the Amendment as it stands. I regret that any bad relationship should have come between those who were obviously friends at one time; I regret to see quarrels anywhere. I have here a circular issued by the body on behalf of whom the hon. and gallant Member is moving his Amendment, and one paragraph in that circular states:
All practitioners should be attached to a recognised centre, so that, whatever registration provisions are introduced, they may obtain protection. For example, the N.A.A. appears in the draft of the Architects Registration Bill, 1928, presented by the Registration Committee of the R.I.B.A., by virtue of which the N.A.A. will be represented on the Admission Committee of the Bill if the Bill is approved by Parliament in the form in which it is to be submitted.
Oh, I am sorry; that quotation refers to the other side of the medal. I entirely agree with the criticism that to give a representation of four to an organisation which is just growing and has not reached a large membership would be entirely unfair, and I hope the Mover will not press the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I save trouble by asking if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) will move as an Amendment to my Amendment that they should be given one member instead of four? I would accept that.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "four," and to insert instead thereof the word "one."

Sir R. GOWER: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there added to the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. McSHANE: I am exceedingly sorry that Clause 7 was not deleted. I feel sure that those who voted for the retention of that Clause will regret the course which they have taken. I feel positive that, while the Bill will confer the principle of registration on a vast body of people, the public, and particularly those who come from very poor homes, will not get the opportunities which they would have had if Clause 7 had been left out. I am glad that the architects are now to have the same right of registration which I claim for myself. The point I have mentioned is the fatal flaw in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I have not taken any part in opposing this Bill, because so many of my hon. Friends are in favour of it, and many of my constituents. I think that the Royal Institute of British Architects have made a mistake in requiring registration, and my view is that the State makes a mistake in registering any body unless it is necessary from the point of view of life and death. It was for that reason that medical registration was required, and special privileges of this kind should not be conferred unless they deal with matters of life and death. This Bill attempts to standardise something which cannot be standardised, and it is not in the interests of the public to take action of this kind.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. WINTERTON: I would like to assure the House that those of us who have been critical of this Measure have had only one object in view, and that is the protection of the interests of the public, and to keep the door as wide open as possible to every working-class boy and girl to enter this honourable profession. I hope that when this Measure reaches another place certain small inadvertencies with which we have not been able to deal to-day on account of Mr. Speaker's Ruling may be corrected. This Measure is by no means perfect. Under its provisions a man may appeal against being taken off the register, but there is no provision by which he can appeal when anybody refuses to put him on the register, and I hope the necessary steps will be taken to remedy that defect.
I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Boroughs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on the successful carrying through of this very difficult and complicated Measure. Some of us have fought the Bill very strenuously both upstairs and in the House to-day, but I should like to testify to the uniform courtesy of the hon. and gallant Member in his conduct of the Measure. We have not all the same temperament, but I would like to say to the society which has promoted this Bill it is fine to have the strength of a giant, but it is merciful not to use a giant's strength. I hope that the Bill will lead to the building up of a very honourable profession, and I trust they will realise that they have a great prerogative, and that they will always be open to creative ideas from whatever source they may come.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT RETURNS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I believe this Measure is one which is acceptable to every section of the House. Briefly put, the objects of the Bill are that all parties in the House shall be truly informed of the effects of customs duties in the safeguarded industries. Whenever a fiscal question is debated there often arises a difference of opinion with regard to figures, and it has been said that figures can be made to prove anything. Consequently, the only way we can get at the verities is by insisting that a record shall be kept of the number of persons employed in any particular industry before the duty is imposed and again after a reasonable period.
May I, very briefly, endeavour to summarise the urgent need for this information. As hon. Members are aware, many violent Debates have centred round the facts in regard to employment in safeguarded industries. No one will deny that we want the true facts, no matter whether they are favourable to Tariff Reformers or tend to the belittlement of Free Traders. If we can have a return
such as is insisted upon in this Bill, then, but not till then, we shall have true evidence before us.
At present there is no true statement available as to the effect of this policy upon these industries. We all know that in the case of certain industries, such as the glove industry, the Government are able to get their information from the joint industrial council, and in those cases fairly accurate returns can be obtained. We know that employment in the fabric glove industry from 1925 to 1929 was doubled, and we know that in that industry at present, since the duties have been removed, employment has been halved. In other industries, however, no returns are available, and I submit that the duty should be imposed upon the industries of this country to give these returns to Parliament, so that we may know what the results are.
In the case of the motor industry, employment, since the Duties were first imposed in 1915, has increased by something like 180,000. That is a very respectable figure, when we look at the results which were considered in the Debate only yesterday. That figure, however, in no way represents the true facts in the various ramifications of the industry. The motor industry has many branch and subsidiary industries engaged in making accessories, which are not included in the returns submitted to the Government. I myself came across an industry in which 700 persons were engaged entirely in making wind-screens, and I discovered that they were not included at all in the motor, industry's returns. We want to get at the real facts of an industry, either beneficial or otherwise, in order that we may give a true verdict as to whether this policy should be ended or increased.
In connection with our employment returns in this country, we find very curious results. Here are three cases which have been brought to my notice. One man, whom we will call "A," was registered as a silversmith, but, when that trade fell off, he trained himself as a panel beater, and he has been 100 per cent. employed on motor body work, but he is not recorded as employed in the motor industry. Another man, "B," was registered as an upholsterer, but, having been unable to get employment in that trade, has been 100 per cent.
employed on motor body work. A third man, "C" was registered as a, foundry-man, but he has been 100 per cent. employed as a moulder of motor-car engine monoblocs since he came into the motor trade. It is desirable that we should ascertain from the industries themselves the total numbers of people employed in them, and endeavour to find out how far the effects of this policy may ramify. I hope there will be no opposition to the Bill. It was indicated, when the House generously gave me a First Reading for it, that all parties were as anxious as the Mover that we should have the absolute facts of the position. Therefore, I move the Second Reading with the confident hope that it will receive the unanimous assent of the House, because, whatever our views may be on the effects of this policy, I believe we all want to get as near as possible to the truth.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to second the Motion.
As my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, there has been from time to time, since these Duties were first imposed, considerable difficulty in getting accurate returns of the numbers of people brought into employment as a consequence of their imposition, and in the Debates in this House it was always a matter of contention as to whether the introduction of Safeguarding had been conducive to the enlargement of facilities for employment or not. On a number of occasions in this House statements from this side have been challenged by hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and statements made by them have been challenged by us on this side, as to the extent to which employment had been affected by the introduction of these Duties.
The proposal in the Bill is extremely simple. All that we ask is that powers should be taken by the Board of Trade to compel the people responsible for the branches of industry to which these Duties are applied to make returns of the numbers of workpeople engaged in them at certain definite dates, and also to give statistical details of the numbers of people employed in these same industries before the imposition of these Duties. There is no substantial objection raised on the part
of any firm engaged in a safeguarded industry. I think it will be the wish of most of them, provided they are compelled to do so, to give the details that are sought for in the Measure, but we are a curiously constituted people. We are very reticent in giving details which we feel, if made public, would be somehow or other prejudicial to the industry for which we are responsible. Consequently, there is a certain lassitude in giving the necessary details which are so important to fullness of Debate in this House.
My hon. and gallant Friend has presented his case very simply and conclusively. I assume that the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade will accept these proposals. I think the Board of Trade itself, having regard to the number of questions addressed to it from time to time, will be glad to have the means of ascertaining exactly the numbers of persons employed in safeguarded and protected industries, and, in view of the hope entertained so profoundly and so intimately on this side of the House that there shall be a very substantial enlargement of the policy for which we stand in the future, it will be of great importance that we should have exact details of the possibilities of employment offered in the industries to which the State has extended the rights of safeguarding.

Mr. PERRY: It is not often that I find myself in complete agreement with the two hon. Members who have spoken. Whatever may be our opinions in regard to Free Trade, or to Safeguarding or Protection, we shall not do either cause any good by shirking the real facts of the situation. If I have a complaint to make about the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the Bill, it is that he is four or five years too late. If this had been introduced four or five years ago, we might have had more reliable information as to the exact effect of the Safeguarding Duties. While welcoming the Bill, one can see difficulties. It is said that the information has already been sought to be obtained voluntarily, but only with a small degree of success. I believe in all sections of industry the more facts there are available for those concerned, either on the side of the employer or the worker, the better for the industry itself and for the prospect of
amicable relationships. I heartily support the Bill.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I do not rise to oppose the Bill, but I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consider well whether the wording of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1 is not perhaps a little ambiguous where it refers to the "number of persons employed in such business." It is not quite clear what that means. If a business has a rapid change in its personnel, it might employ a certain number of people during one month, they might all be dismissed and another lot taken on, and the number under the wording of the Bill would be the total number, which might be three or four times as great as the average number employed. Some attention will have to be given to the wording there in order that we may arrive at figures that are really relevant. With regard to the figures under paragraph (a), in a good many industries it is going to be very hard to arrive at a correct estimate of the exact numbers employed. Being in complete agreement with the object which the hon. and gallant Member has put forward, I merely make this suggestion as a matter for further consideration on the Committee stage, and I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): This Bill is one in respect of which the House is quite free to determine its own policy in giving it a Second Reading or otherwise. It has been stated that it is difficult to oppose the principle contained in the Bill because the Measure does not establish a principle as far as Safeguarding is concerned. It merely seeks to elicit information so that the results of Safeguarding may be shown in order perhaps to permit of a more definite opinion being expressed in regard to it. It is therefore difficult to refuse to have this provision in that respect. I think it is true to say that if information has to be collected it ought to be under compulsory powers and that it should be complete. Obviously, if it were left to voluntary effort there might be adjustments and arrangements which might defeat the objects behind the Bill. Therefore, it will be necessary to have compulsory powers for the Bill to be effective.
At the same time, it is also necessary to point out that, if returns are to give the result which is being aimed at, the Bill will have to receive rather careful examination in Committee. The situation is hardly as simple and clear cut as the hon. and gallant Gentleman asserts. I do not know how far, as a matter of fact, the Bill extends beyond the mere policy of Safeguarding itself, and as to how far it embraces what may be called the McKenna Duties. Those Duties have never been considered under the same heading, but that is by the way.
In regard to Safeguarding, it is quite possible to have parts of an article manufactured by a firm also connected with other classes of manufacture. It would be a mixed business, and it would be very difficult to say exactly how many of the employés were engaged upon the article safeguarded and how many were connected with the other part of the business. That is a point which must be considered so that any figures which are to be ascertained, assuming that the Bill becomes law, shall be as accurate as possible and the objective aimed at realised. That, of course, is a Committee point. It is not a point which can be submitted very largely against the Bill being given a Second Reading. It is a point which must be examined.
Again, there will have to be some kind of Schedule prepared. I suppose that firms will have to be notified that they come under the provisions of the Measure, and therefore there will have to be very clear definitions as to what is intended in order that the Department involved in securing the returns may understand what duties devolve upon firms in that respect. That, again, is a Committee point. I only mention it in order to make it clear that these are phases of the situation which must be submitted to very close examination. If a satisfactory way out can be found, I do not think that any section of the House will demur at ascertaining the fullest information, so that the returns may be reliable and that they may be used or quoted in whatever way they may affect the issue which may be involved.

Sir BASIL PETO: I should like to welcome the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. We appreciate that speech and the intention of the Government to co-operate with those who are promoting the Bill in the effort to arrive at the facts.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
is what we want to know. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there are points in the Bill which will require clarifying and elucidating in Committee. There is the point as to how far the inquiries into the employment in various industries must go. Whether it goes so far as the McKenna Duties is somewhat open to doubt. There seems to be a little contradiction between the provisions of Clause 1 and Clause 3. Clause 3 specifically limits the Act. It says that it
shall remain in force until the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, ceases to have effect.
That would appear to limit it entirely to the special industries that receive Safeguarding under that Act of Parliament, but in Clause 1 the words are wider:
… either by the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, or by any other enactment, special provisions for safeguarding against competition by industries in countries outside the United Kingdom have been made. …
That would clearly seem to imply that any industry which received this measure of protection under any other Act would have to be inquired into. I hope that in the Committee stage we shall not contract the provisions of the Bill. What we want to get at are broad principles. Those who support the Free Trade view and those who support the view held on these benches are both equally interested in clarifying the position so that in our controversies we shall know where we stand because the facts will be on a sure and ascertained basis. That being so, we do not want to have the information only from one particular little group of industries and to leave out particulars from other industries. What we want to know is, broadly speaking, whether the principle of safeguarding has done or can do anything for unemployment. Anything that can throw light on the
matter from any other aspect of the question is all to the good. Therefore, it is very pleasing to find from the benches opposite and from the Treasury Bench a consensus of opinion that we do want to get at the facts.
Although there are certain questions which require to be considered and clarified in the Committee stage, they are not many. I hope that the Bill may have an easy passage and become law at the earliest possible date. It is a great pity that we have not had the desired information during the last three or four years. It would have been of enormous advantage in our discussions and would have been helpful to everybody in forming an opinion one way or another if we had had a reliable basis to go on. My hon. and gallant Friend in moving the Second Reading referred to the glove industry. In that industry there is not one federation only which produces figures, but there are two trade organisations, one dealing with the fabric glove side of the industry and the other covering both leather and fabric gloves. The figures that they arrive at are by no means identical, in some respects they are contradictory. That shows the absolute necessity if we are to have any reliable figures that they should be collected by the Board of Trade under powers given by this House and, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, they should be compulsory. That is absolutely essential. I welcome the reception the Bill has received and I hope that we shall find the same unanimity in trying to get the measure through further stages and on to the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. GRAY: I do not propose to say anything in opposition to the Second Reading, but in view of one or two arguments which have been advanced, I should like to point out that it must not be understood that any increase of employment shown by such figures as may be obtained is any evidence that it is additional employment to the total employment of the country. No person who advocates the principle of Free Trade has ever suggested that you cannot by a heavy Duty improve the conditions of that particular trade. What
we have always maintained is that the advantage obtained by that trade has to be offset by the disadvantage to the whole body of users in the community, and I enter a caveat if it is taken for granted that additional figures in safeguarded industries are a proof that it is additional to the total employment of the country. That, however, is no reason why we should oppose the Second Reading, and as one who has always taken a keen interest in this great public issue I say that we cannot have too much reliable information.
The main difficulty that I see is the difficulty of collecting accurate information. You are asking a body of persons, which will not merely include large responsible firms but a large number of small producers, to supply the information. You do not ask only great firms, with officials and clerks and accountants, who can be relied upon without any bias whatever to give perfectly clear and accurate figures. I am not quite sure, unless you have clear regulations and are sure that you have covered the whole industry, how far these figures when collected can really be relied upon. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out one essential difficulty and the greatest drawback to a suggestion of this kind, and that is the case of a firm that is producing in its factories goods which are protected and goods which are not protected. You have a scale of duties in the hardware trade, in the cutlery trade, in the silk trade and in the artificial silk trade, which have wide ramifications.
If there is any question of an extension of safeguarded industries or further articles to be safeguarded, which would enter into the production of a factory producing on a large scale, then I have no hesitation in saying that I doubt whether the return would be of any value in forming an accurate opinion as to the actual amount of employment that was being used on the production of those particular goods where the firm in question was producing a variety of goods of which safeguarded goods were only a part. I must enter a caveat against the underlying fallacy of hon. Members above the Gangway that such figures as may be obtained in regard to safeguarded industries is any evidence that it is additional employment to the
total employment of the country. I do want the House to have at least that caveat entered in considering the Bill. But I shall offer no opposition to the Second Reading. If this information can be obtained reliably and without undue expense, I think it would be well worth having.

Mr. MATHERS: I was very glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken. Thoughts like his were running through my mind in looking at the Bill, and particularly in looking at the backing of the Bill. When I think of what I at least believe to be the fiscal views of the majority of those whose names are on the back of the Bill I look at this tiny and very innocent looking Bill with a certain amount of wonder as to how the information would be obtained accurately and for what purpose it was required. I hope that in Committee the Bill will be so tightened up that there will be no possibility of information being put on record that carries anything of a wrong idea or is possible of any wrong interpretation. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has agreed to accept the Bill, and is willing to see it go further. I hope that although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has received instructions along that line from his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, those who are backing the Bill will not think that it is any sign of weakness or is due to the fact that at Question Time the hon. Members who have to-day so persuasively and in such an urbane manner produced reasons for the Bill, think that the President of the Board of Trade is afraid of the rather heated remarks and pointed questions put to him on fiscal matters.
I can assure them that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, although perhaps he does not carry the weight or the inches of some hon. Members, has no lack of courage. They need not think, therefore, that agreement to the passage of the Bill is due to any fear on my right hon. Friend's part. I hope that when the Bill becomes law and these facts are collected, there will be a cessation of the heat that is sometimes engendered at Question Time on fiscal questions. As the Bill is welcomed on all sides of the House, per-
haps I may be allowed to say that you, Mr. Speaker, will not be indisposed to welcome relief from the responsibility of sometimes wishing to intervene in order to protect my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade from the heat and verbal fiery darts of the hon. Members who to-day have been so very reasonable and persuasive in putting forward the claims of this little Bill.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I do not propose to offer opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, but one or two reflections occur to me as a result of these proposals being made by certain hon. Members who sit behind me. For many years past the alleged success of the safeguarded industries has been the staple of Protectionist propaganda, and the country has been advised to go further and to adopt a general system of Protection for the reason that the experiment already made has led to a vast increase of employment in the industries affected without raising prices or in any other way acting with detrimental effect. Now we have the same hon. Members who have used that argument saying that we do not know what the effect has been upon employment in those industries, that there is not now and never has been any reliable information on the subject, and that it is necessary to legislate in order to obtain the actual facts—thereby confessing that all this propaganda hitherto has been resting on a wholly insecure basis and has not been justified. I hope, at all events, that during the interval which must necessarily elapse between the passing of this Bill and the collecting of the information hon. Members will refrain from telling their audiences that there has been such a vast increase of employment in those industries.
Another point occurs to me which has already been suggested. It will be exceedingly difficult to obtain any statistics, even under this Bill, which are reliable. You have in the first place to try to reconstitute what was the state of employment before the Safeguarding Duties came into operation. Most of them came into operation in 1925—that is to say you have to get returns from these trades of what was the state of employment in 1924, a very difficult thing to do. Some firms may have disappeared altogether even though safeguarded. All
kinds of changes may have taken place, and, while you may get full particulars of those employed to-day, you may have very much smaller figures given as regards seven years ago. Then how far are you going to collect material with regard to accessory trades? The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) gave instances of people engaged in the by-ways of the motor industry, making accessories and products at several removes from the main factory in which the motor is produced. Are you going to trace out all the leather workers, cabinet makers, scientific instrument makers and others engaged in making products some of which in course of time will be used for motor cars, and some of which may be used for other and unprotected industries? Will you succeed in distinguishing between the people engaged in those trades and the people engaged in similar analogous trades? If you can succeed in those cases now will you be able to trace back what was done in those industries in 1924 and so arrive at a just comparison?
Then how many fresh forms will have to be filled up by harassed manufacturers? Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches protest against bureaucracy and the increase of officials and the evil of requiring manufacturers to divert their attention from the arduous duties of their own business, in order to fill up the increasing number of statistical tables required by Acts of Parliament. Yet here they are proposing to set up a new branch of the Board of Trade with all its officials to try to allocate what are the industries concerned, how far you are to pursue their various ramifications, how you are to get the information of 1924, how many manufacturers and home workers these forms will have to be sent to, and how you are to enforce the return of those forms? This is bureaucracy and interference in excelsis proposed by Conservative Members. Let them take the responsibility for the grumbling and anger which will ensue when all these various industries receive these floods of new statistical forms at their instigation. Of course, these safeguarded industries will have brought this upon themselves. It is they who have clamoured for the hand of the State to be
applied to them, it is they who have invited the interference of Parliament, the control of bureaucracy, and it is they therefore who must share the responsibility for the result.
Lastly, it was said by one of the hon. Members supporting the Bill that what we wanted to get was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I quite agree, but whether we shall get the truth, for the reasons I have mentioned, I have some doubt. That we shall get the whole truth, I am certain will not be the case, because all that will be shown will be chat in particular industries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Gray) has said, a comparison will be made in the number of persons employed before and after certain duties were imposed, but there is no statistical investigation that can be made which will show the numbers who are thrown out of work in other industries through the stoppage of export trade, which is the inevitable result of the stoppage of the import trade, and there is no estimate suggested by this Bill which would indicate the burden placed upon the community by an increase of prices above what they would otherwise be.
I should very much like to see an impartial statistical investigation into the effects of Protection in all these industries, comparing the prices charged in these industries with what those prices would have been if there had been no duties, that is to say, taking into account the fall of prices in other industries and the prices of raw materials. That is not proposed by this Bill, and I can imagine that the title of the Bill would exclude any Clause being inserted to include that, but I wish the Board of Trade could some day see its way to making a statistical investigation into this matter of prices in order to trace what the effect has really been—

Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Member permitted to go into a general discussion of prices?

Mr. SPEAKER: I fancy the right hon. Gentleman was stating things that might be brought into the Bill, but I think he was going a little too far.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I was only animadverting on the observation of my hon.
Friend that we were likely to get the whole truth. I suggest that we certainly shall not, and in acceding to this Bill it must not be supposed that those who are Free Traders would for a moment agree that if and when a certain increase in employment is shown to have existed in certain industries, that is a whole statement of the case.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Charleton.]

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes before Four o'clock, until Monday next, 20th April.